Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 25

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

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interest in securities[edit]

Interest in securities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Berea, Kansas[edit]

Berea, Kansas (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)

As stated in the lead, this appears to be a ghost town. There is a source saying there was a post office that closed in 1870. Otherwise, I can't find any evidence of this town existing (if you look for sources, be wary of Berea, Kentucky). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's definitely some evidence of existence in newspapers, for example this newspaper clipping from The Evening Herald in 1905 (and there's a few more of that same variety). Likewise with this clipping from The Greeley News in 1882. Can't find any good coverage of the town itself but these sources should prove its existence for a non-trivial period of time. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was at least a church as well. [1]
  • Well there's always the source that the article was reportedly copied from:
    • Raitinger, Laine (March 2012). "Berea, Franklin County". Chapman Center Research Collections. hdl:2097/41054.
  • Uncle G (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The abstract of the Book states the town was short lived, which suggest non-notability. The book claims that the people and institutions that form there were notable. But that notability is not transferable to the town. James.folsom (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is the full text of that book:https://krex.k-state.edu/bitstream/handle/2097/41054/2a40590251c95941ce77b68746e2adc2.pdf?sequence=1. If this is a valid secondary source, then someone could write an article that might be compliant with policy. I think there are still questions around if the coverage is sustained and widespread. James.folsom (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find I'm unsure, the ghost town is listed on a ghost town Website as well. But beyond that and that book, that seems to be it. The material in the book is suggests it could be notable, so it all swings on that. James.folsom (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Yeah, it's a ghost town: the location is "Berea Cemetery", presumably attached to the apparently former church. We've had a great deal of trouble dealing with the many Kansas 4th class post offices out of insistence that they are nonetheless "communities", but in this case we don't even know where the post office or church really were. I really don't think we should have articles on these places unless there is some evidence of an actuall settlement as opposed to a locale defined by a post office. Mangoe (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mangoe: I believe we've demonstrated evidence of an "actual settlement" here? I'm not sure what else you're looking for to demonstrate that. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I read the whole book, and I think the only potentially notable thing is the slave underground railroand stop that was there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.folsom (talk • contribs) 00:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have not been able to find any mention of this place in the underground railroad literature. Though Franklin County was a hot spot in Kansas Underground railroad history. It was probably a stop on that railroad. It's going to be real hard to find anything. It's best that any articles on the counties role in the Underground railroad deal with this one source.James.folsom (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Newspapers.com turns up mentions of the churches – two tiny snippets about the first church erected by the United Presbyterians in 1858 and the presbytery of nearby Garnett meeting at Berea – plus a second advent (Millerite) being organized in a large mission tent in Berea in 1873. There are passing mentions of people who lived there including a man who committed suicide and another young man who was declared insane, plus others. Anyway, doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no significant coverage. बिनोद थारू (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCKS-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to contain the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG. The only sources currently cited are either primary or lack independence from the source. Let'srun (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here's the Reason: Even though it a station where I live, I don't see that much sources about it, so it makes sense, you can say that it's sister stations like WROB-LD in Topeka are also included in that. I also can't get it, even with an antenna. Also, there's no sources. Mer764Wiki (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Perhaps a decent demonstration of how our interpretation of the notability of broadcast stations has changed over the years is that, back in 2016, TV25.tv was deemed to not be independently notable from this station at AfD and was redirected. Even then, I questioned whether we really needed four articles related to that network of all-diginet LPTVs — but we hadn't quite reached the point where the correct number was/is/should be zero. Seven years later, it has become more accepted that this simply isn't the type of station that gets the requisite significant coverage to meet the GNG — FCC records and network announcements of their new affiliate just won't do. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:41, 26 December 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. Many of the arguments here lacked depth beyond an assertion of passing or failing notability guidelines. I agree with Uhai that the arguments on the keep side were superficial, but at the same time I don't think that a refutation of the sources that are in the article has been made by the "delete" side either. I have made a cursory review of the first few sources which relate to his winning (not just appearing) in the Gulder Ultimate Search program, and an interview with Punch magazine. These go beyond mere passing mentions, but many of the sources further down the list are only a mention of Okagbue as a cast member. There is certainly a basis here for further discussion, but since this has been on "final relist" for over a week, I am calling this a no consensus for the time being. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Okagbue[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chris Okagbue (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)

Same as last AFD. Appeared on a reality show, acted in a few films, but nothing big and has a few mentions in Nigerian publications but nothing that meets RS or GNG. Doesn't meet notability and not enough has been done to improve article since last deletion. Nswix (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 21:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Everyone who appears on a reality show anywhere in the word does not automatically qualify under WP:GNG and WP:Notability guidelines. This article does not appear to justify keeping based on those criterion. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thirty movies and multiple TV series are a bit more than "a reality show". Owen× ☎ 20:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Quantity of work is irrelevant if the works are not notable or if his roles are insignificant, per WP:NACTOR. Uhai (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Weakly passes WP:NACTOR. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ACTOR states "person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"
    Which multiple films has this person acted in, that are notable? Nswix (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per all above. Extensive work as an actor. Svartner (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. None of the keep votes here have bothered to point out any of his credits that are notable and in which he has a significant role per this notability criteria. I didn't go through his every credit but I sampled a lot of them and the work is either non-notable or his roles are insignificant, as best as I can tell, aside from Lotanna—though I have doubts if even this film is notable. The reality show appearance and coverage isn't enough to claim notability. Uhai (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almaany[edit]

Almaany (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the two references, one is a link to their own website and the other does not appear to even mention them much less cover them. North8000 (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is THE most important online dictionary of Arabic, even though there are few sources. For the source published by Springer Nature, a simple command/ctrl + F search will reveal mention in section 5.4:
    A table of synonyms is built as a prototype for testing the proposed method. It includes synonyms from different linguistic resources: the Arabic WordNet (AWN), Almaany (2014) and Parkinson (2005).
    Although there is a paucity of sources, deleting this article does not improve Wikipedia. إيان (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • إيان please drop whatever sources you do have in here, so we can better make up our mind. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      They're in the article. Do you want to copy and paste them here in this AfD discussion? إيان (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? Whoa, hold the horses. The nominating editor really should look into a subject before nominating a new (June 2023) stub article concerning it for deletion. His not knowing anything about the subject doesn't make it non-notable. I've added more info and cited several academic sources. It is a very notable subject in morphological and lexicographic research. I presently see nine high-quality academic sources, if the predatory journal bot doesn't read it as a false positive and remove the last one I added.;-) Carlstak (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the "New" in NPP (New Page Patrol). Ideally happens a a few months, in this case it was at 6 months. North8000 (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • addendum: Oh, I see in the edit history that Headbomb (an appropriate username;-) has already removed the source I added last once before. His bot is not infallible, and many of the assessments made in the list it is based on are quite subjective with notable scholarly dissent. He sometimes deletes worthy sources. Carlstak (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've left the info but removed the cite because the International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications does look a bit sketchy, even though the paper is good and by respectable academic researchers. Note that Headbomb's removals are based on Beall's List, whose compiler, librarian Jeffrey Beall, has retracted the list. Carlstak (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting. For me, at first glance, it appears significant, but a thorough analysis of sources and local books is necessary. It possible the subject is worth being on Wikipedia. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards keep Weighed in below as keep. Much material and many sources have been added since I nominated. Also if @إيان:'s overview is accurate then I think there is an WP:IAR argument for keep......could إيان or anyone expand on that? North8000 (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almaany is cited as a source for translations by many dozens, if not hundreds, of scholarly works published by academic publishers in English and Arabic, as a simple Google Books search shows. Seems odd to question its notability, and an assessment of such is worth more than a glance. Carlstak (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it's obvious that the nomination for deletion is null and void. The article has 9,461 bytes and 14 citations of scholarly sources, including Cambridge Scholars Publishing, John Wiley & Sons, and Routledge. It should have been clear from the get-go that an article subject cited as a source by many scholarly publications would be likely to have reliable sources for its notability.
WP:NEXIST says:

Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.

That clearly didn't happen. One wonders if there is some bias operative here, unconscious or otherwise. Carlstak (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What a ridiculous insulting interpretation. You're complaining that the 50 overworked NPP'ers trying to handle 600 articles per day during their limited wiki-minutes didn't go find sources that none of the millions of editors didn't bother to find and put in the article? And that even at AFD nobody has produced? And the explanation for that is bias? North8000 (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mind your temper. It's part of the guideline that you yourself cited. A 30-second Google Books search would have sufficed to indicate the possibility that supporting sources might exist, just as the guideline says. I don't see how it could be clearer than "before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any."
It's not about temper. I was criticizing you doing "inventing bad faith" instead of AGF, especially when the AGF explanation is much more plausible. North8000 (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a stretch. You've transmogrified "One wonders..." into a conspiracy theory. Creative, though. Carlstak (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how there can be a conspiracy with only one person. I've made my comment about some things that you wrote and stand by it. I feel not need to take it any further. Maybe what I said after that regarding the practicalities of who to expect to to put in references might be interesting. All of that aside, I wish you the best and thank you for your work. North8000 (talk)
No problem, and thanks. It was a joke, and I was laughing when I wrote it, meant to add a wink face. I do all my editing while quite high.;-) Carlstak (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. All is good. North8000 (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd lay odds that I found two usable sources in less time than it took to make the nomination. Carlstak (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as there is clearly an abundance of sources. Mccapra (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IMO, based on input above, this is based on a bit of Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works and within that the extreme enclyclopedicness of the topic, or a bit of WP:IAR if one does not acknowledge that. I still want this to be decided; This is not a withdraw of the nomination. North8000 (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously. "Extreme enclyclopedicness"? That's a new one; whatever it's supposed to mean. Gotta say that the "How Wikipedia notability works" essay is perhaps the most muddled and fuzzy essay I've ever read on WP, or anywhere, for that matter. Carlstak (talk) 23:51, 25 December 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. I don't see many characters listed at Aikatsu!#Plot but if you want to create a Redirect from this page title to this section of the article, feel free to do so. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aikatsu! characters[edit]

List of Aikatsu! characters (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)

List is less discussing the characters and more a weird trivia fiesta, and little indication of any reason these characters are notable. Searching online showed about the same per WP:BEFORE: It's basically a dump list made to shove the character info here so it's 'out of sight, out of mind' for the actual parent article. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:00, 25 December 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hip-Hop Dance Conservatory[edit]

Hip-Hop Dance Conservatory (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 clear evidence of notability per WP:NORG * Pppery * it has begun... 20:40, 25 December 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 Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series. Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atton Rand[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Atton Rand (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 sure if theres any SIGCOV here also for this guy. After an hard time searching for possible sources at google search that mainly talks about the character; turns out none of them are good. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 08:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series. Not clear that this is any more notable than any of the other characters listed there. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Industrial Insect (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this discussion as 'merge', based on the obvious consensus above. Haleth has requested the opportunity to provide new arguments to the discussion. On the basis that a) this discussion only recently closed (48hrs ago approx.), b) the good-faith request from Haleth, and c) the fact that this isn't a contentious topic area or similar, relisting in good faith to allow Haleth to argue alternate points of discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:23, 25 December 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaltungo Emirate[edit]

Kaltungo Emirate (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)

If revision by 45.29.250.249 (talk) at 10:51, 24 December 2023 is correct, "there is no such thing as the "Kaltungo Emirate."" Gjs238 (talk) 19:53, 25 December 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. There are lingering concerns that the sources provided in article are largely based on interviews that lack independence, and that what is left is not the in-depth coverage that confers notability. I found no formal policy or guideline specifically concerning the status of interviews as sources, only an essay, WP:INTERVIEW, where the positive and negative considerations have been presented. The fact that a fairly large newspaper published an interview indicates that the publishers consider the person to be of some note, but using the material in an interview as a source does bring up valid independence issues, more so if the claims are contentious. There was at least one objectively incorrect claim from the "keep" side (that the subject was an Olympic medalist), but the main thrust is that the sum of coverage, including the interview, is sufficient. Aside from being in the majority, those claims were not unreasonable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pietro Farina (athlete)[edit]

Pietro Farina (athlete) (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 athlete; source 3 (at least as of nomination) shows minimal SIGCOV, and overall not enough to justify inclusion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Italy. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thank you for nominating the article and giving us the chance to improve it. I added a few sources to the article but the most notable of them is this one, which contains a lot of information about Farina (I am just not comfortable parsing most of it due to the language barrier). It can be difficult to find info because there are so many people with this name but he is definitely widely covered in Italian sources as a coach and associate of famed sprinter Pietro Mennea. --Habst (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Habst's source looks like significant coverage; as we already have coverage to satisfy WP:SPORTCRIT, I think its safe to assume an athlete like this will have more offline coverage as well, considering he competed in the 1970s. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evaluation of expansion of article would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The material added from Italian sources is currently looking weird. Surely he was a coach in years other than 2019 and 2021 as well? I added something more tangible, though, namely his medal at the 1977 Universiade. The Universiade had a higher status at the time, when World Championships did not exist. This should of course be followed up by contemporary news sources discussing his exploits. Geschichte (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geschichte, thank you for helping to improve the article. My citing of the Italian sources was awkward because I don't know Italian and I was trying to be as accurate as possible based on the machine translation. And thank you for including his Universiade medal -- that should make him meet WP:NATH as a medalist at a major international competition as well. --Habst (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The source mentioned above is 85% quotes from Farina. This is the only content that isn't part of the interview, with material that is actually directly on Farina bolded:

    PAVIA. Santo Domingo, Christmas 1983. Pietro Farina is in retreat with the Italian national athletics team which is preparing for the indoor world championships in Milan. In training, on the 100m, he takes the pleasure of repeatedly beating the "myth" Pietro Mennea, the fastest man in the world in the 200m, but who is now over thirty years old and has already given his best on the short distance. Then a peritonitis knocked out Belgioioso's talent and made his dream of becoming the heir of the Barletta ace disappear. [...] A few more months, and the sprinter from Pavia decided to leave competitive activity.

    Today, at 63, fresh from retirement after a long career as a physical education teacher - the last fifteen years spent at the Cossa institute in Pavia [...]

A local interview with so little secondary independent commentary is not enough for NATH. JoelleJay (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for voting and bringing this to our attention. I was able to find many matches for articles about Farina at the Corriere Della Sera archives, but I had issues logging in through the Wikipedia library so I'm not sure how I can share them here. I captured the image of one and added it to {{refideas}} in Talk:Pietro Farina (athlete), the image is here: Oggi la finale dei 200 metri. Do you know any Italian to help us go through these matches? Thanks, --Habst (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, that source only has a passing mention of Farina in a routine event recap. My own search of Corriere only returned 4 hits from 1972 to 1980, two of them being the source above, one being a mention in a discussion about athlete pensions, and one a false positive for a "Pietro Fanna". JoelleJay (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for looking through the sources. Can you try to incorporate the pensions citation into the article, as that would help us build a case for widespread coverage? Looking at some other athletes from that time period, it looks like Farina competed during what some called "the Pietro Mennea era" in Italy where athletics was of prominent national interest, so I want to look into other Italian news sources. I was also able to find Farina's name in this list -- I think it is a list of national champions? It would really help if we had an Italian language speaker to decipher some of these sources for us. --Habst (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The pensions story is minor and his involvement in it only passing, it would be UNDUE to include. Given the extensive coverage of Mennea in Corriere during that time, if Farina was notable I think we'd expect to see more than a handful of articles within that database that mention him. JoelleJay (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for replying and translating the pensions story, at least we know more about it now. I think we have to look at other news sources and ask for the help of an Italian speaker if needed -- when the article was first proposed for deletion, it was only one sentence long, and now we have already found several sources mentioning Farina and the article has improved despite not knowing the source material language at all. I found that with Vittorino Milanesio, it was helpful to search for specific region names alongside his name as local coverage endured, and by doing that with Farina I found another source noting his coaching position at an athletics club, which I added to the article. I suppose the next step, then, would be to look at local papers near Belgioioso, Lombardy and see if their archives are accessible? --Habst (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what the state of the article is or was if we don't have multiple sources of IRS SIGCOV. An article full of trivial mentions or non-independent material is no more encyclopedic than a single-sentence stub. The lack of easily-accessible sources is just another indicator that the subject isn't notable, per WP:N: Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for the helpful response and motivation to look for better sources. Switching gears to IRS SIGCOV then, what do you think about the idea that the la Provincia Pavese article about Farina is independent and reliable, despite its inclusion of many quotes by Farina? I say this because per the three bulleted criteria at WP:IS,
  • Is this source self-published or not? -- No, it is published by Di Roberto Lodigiani and La Provincia Pavese.
  • Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject? -- It is independent as La Provincia Pavese is a general purpose newspaper that doesn't appear to have any connection to Farina.
  • Is this source primary or not? -- No, it is not a primary source because La Provincia Pavese has its own editors / editorial standards, the purpose of the article appears to be to tell a history of Farina's life that may in part be in his own words, but the editors of the paper are responsible for fact-checking the statements unlike e.g. Farina's club website atletica100torri.com, which might be considered a self-published source.
So, by the Wikipedia policy definition, it appears that article is considered independent, I don't see any policy that says because an article includes mainly quotes that it should not be considered. What do you think? --Habst (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The material in the interview that is directly from Farina, or is simply summarizing what Farina said, is not independent or secondary and so does not count toward GNG. We would need to see substantial secondary commentary by the interviewer for this to be considered usable SIGCOV. The policy you're looking for is WP:OR which notes that interviews are primary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for clarifying. I looked at the WP:OR page, and I could not find any mention of the word "interview" in the main text of the policy. The word "interview" is only mentioned in the footnotes, and even then it says, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews specifically emphasizing that whether or not an interview is original research is depending on context.
I think it is clear that in the context of being published by a newspaper, the Provincia Pavese article is not original research -- I think that WP:OR is actually referring to if an editor were to interview Farina directly, then obviously that could not be used as a source, but as long as a reputable third party is conducting the interview (in this case, the newspaper), it is okay to use. What do you think? --Habst (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is most certainly not referring to "an editor interviewing Farina directly" because the classification of interviews as primary comes from UNR and Duke, not Wikipedia. The "context" mentioned is the existence of independent commentary by the interviewer, which is acknowledged to be secondary. Since you seem to cite essays, read this one, which states

The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material. Statements made by interviewees about subjects unrelated to themselves (e.g., the historian interviewed on the radio about local history) are independent and may be either primary or secondary.

Parroting what the original source said, without transforming it through analysis and contextualization, is a primary source.


See also this uncontroversial AfD nom by an admin: This article on a tattoo artist is sourced mainly from interviews. Being primary sources, they don't help us establish his notability.
Or this other AfD by another admin: WP:BLP of a radio personality and podcaster, referenced entirely to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and Q&A interviews that cannot support notability with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. [...] media coverage about him, written in the third person rather than featuring the subject talking about himself, are required for passage of WP:GNG.
Or this statement in another AfD by a third admin: Things like "interviews" and "press releases" are often not considered to be "third party coverage", even if posted by a third party website, because the account is largely (sometimes entirely) from the first party itself.
Or these closes of AfDs by a fourth admin: The result was delete. Interviews are primary sources so the delete argument is the policy based one. The result was delete. I am more persuaded by the delete arguments around the necessity of independent sourcing for a BLP then keep arguments that articles that are basically interviews are independent.
Or this close by a fifth admin: The argument that interviews are admissible is an oversimplification; interviews may count toward GNG when they have intellectually independent content; that has not been demonstrated here. JoelleJay (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for your research. Putting aside this discussion for a moment, I found another SIGCOV article about Farina here:
I will add it to the article as well as it contains new information. This one is not an interview, so what do you think of it? Thank you for your help. --Habst (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews alone don't warrant inclusion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@InvadingInvader, thank you. I found another article that is not an interview, in addition to those already in the wiki article, here:
I have added it to the page. This one is not an interview, so it can be used to warrant inclusion. --Habst (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks independent coverage with which to pass the GNG (the only source provided is comprised primarily of quotes from the subject themself, which is not independent). The tired WP:MUSTBESOURCES is not a suitable deletion argument and should be discounted completely. Let'srun (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Let'srun, thank you for voting because it is important to scrutinize our sources. There are 9 sources provided in the article, plus one on the talk page and one additional source mentioned in this discussion. What policy-based reasons do we have to discard the La Provincia Pavese source? I tried and I could not find any Wikipedia policy saying that a newspaper article quoting someone is not independent.
La Prov Pavese has its own editorial team that would be responsible for the content in articles -- Farina is not responsible and it is not self published, which would make it independent.
P.S. I have wondered, is your username named after LetsRun.com? I'm admittedly a big fan of their work. --Habst (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – More sources have now been located by Habst, and there are certainly more offline. Svartner (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep as an Olympic games medalist per WP:NTRACK बिनोद थारू (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a false claim –  he never won a medal in the Olympic Games. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to which ones are SIGCOV? Maybe I missed them... JoelleJay (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, thank you for responding. Yes, the La Provincia Pavese article written by Di Roberto Lodigiani is plainly SIGCOV. Per the examples at WP:SIGCOV:
    • addresses the topic directly and in detail -- Farina is the subject of the article, and he is addressed directly in detail.
    • no original research is needed to extract the content -- the content is stated plainly in the article, no original research is required.
    • Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. -- in the Provincia Pavese article, Farina is the subject, he is not just trivially mentioned. It is clearly not similar to the "trivial mention" example in the policy, and it is more similar to the IBM example of non-trivial coverage.
    --Habst (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you seriously claiming the five sentences of non-quotes in that article are closer to the book-length history of IBM than to the one-sentence example of trivial coverage? Again, the only content in that source that could contribute to notability is the secondary commentary by the author; nothing the subject says directly, or that is simply repeated by the interviewer, counts at all to consideration of GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @JoelleJay, thank you for scrutinizing the sources because it challenges us to improve the article. I added a new reference for Farina to the article here:
    This one is not an interview, and it is solely about Farina, and it is longer than five sentences. May I ask you to reconsider your vote based on this reference in addition to the other 9 sources already used in the article? --Habst (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ? But that article is an interview? JoelleJay (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, thank you for pointing that out. As I don't know Italian and am relying on machine translation, I thought the quotes were someone else talking about Farina. I used a regex replace(/«.*»/g, '') to remove the quotes from the articles, here is the result:
Extended content

Farina senior e l’amico Mennea L’ex atleta papà del bomber OltreVoghe 21 Gennaio 2014 alle 03:07 OGHERA. . La carriera di Farina, che aveva come specialità i 200 metri, dura dieci anni: dal 1976 al 1986. Diversi titoli italiani conquistati e il risultato di vice campioni del Mondo a Sofia nel 1978 quando Mennea era infortunato. . Nel 1986 Farina vince il concorso e viene scelto dalla Federazione come allenatore nazionale delle categorie giovanili e per diversi anni è preparatore della squadra di basket dell’Annabella Pavia in A1. Con la nascita nel 1990 di Marco (che gioca nell’OltrepoVoghera) l’atleta, che tra pochi giorni compirà 59 anni, si dedica alla famiglia. Il rapporto con il figlio è stretto, ma non ossessivo. . Partecipa alla conversazione Cosa ne pensi? Esprimi ora la tua opinione \ufeffCommenta per primo Ora Farina jr. è quasi pronto al rientro. . Marco Quaglini

Combined with the non-quoted information from the other nine references, I think this is enough to establish SIGCOV. What do you think? --Habst (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am not quite sure how to classify this article on second thought. It does contain many quotes (presumably from Farina), but it also contains prose between the quotes and does not seem to contain any questions. I think it would be very useful to have a native Italian speaker to analyze these for us. Is there a standard way of requesting this? --Habst (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews don't have to be in Q&A format...

Farina's career, which had the 200 meters as its specialty, lasted ten years: from 1976 to 1986. Several Italian titles won and the result of vice world champions in Sofia in 1978 when Mennea was injured. In 1986 Farina won the competition and was chosen by the Federation as national coach of the youth categories and for several years he was coach of the Annabella Pavia basketball team in A1. With the birth of Marco (who plays for OltrepoVoghera) in 1990, the athlete, who will turn 59 in a few days, dedicated himself to his family. The relationship with his son is close, but not obsessive.

4-5 sentences isn't much, especially when it's from an interview scenario. JoelleJay (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs a little more discussion given the consensus has not been completely reached yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 19:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. At the minimum, I say that to err in favour of the subject. My notion is however that Wikipedia's guidelines have been met: Farina has indeed received coverage in Italy, on which we can build a fairly in-depth article. At the same time there are problems both with bad claims in this discussion ("Olympic medalist") and bad prose in the article as it stands. The attempts to denounce any and all coverage about Farina as trivial or non-independent, seem undue and on the verge of WP:WIKILAWYERING. Frankly, deletion discussions should not be characterized by the sheer energy displayed here, which will serve to exhaust most editors/contributors. With everything taken into consideration, it seems to add up to the coverage being significant enough. Geschichte (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above and per WP:HEY. The article may be small but the refs should notability and hopefully it will be expanded soon. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Butterfly in the District of Dreams[edit]

A Butterfly in the District of Dreams (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)

Couldn't find any reliable secondary sources in English besides the Hardcore Gamer review. Couldn't find any Japanese sources besides shopping sites. QuietCicada - Talk 17:12, 25 December 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CompuTrac[edit]

CompuTrac (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)

Propose merging to Technical_analysis#Software, it's just two sentences about the earliest software in the field. In my opinion, it doesn't merit a standalone article, but it deserves a mention in the Technical analysis article. I wanted to merge it myself, but the WP:PROMERGE says that I should also copy talk page tags to the destination page. I'm not sure if I should copy WikiProject Computing there, it is tagged as low importance, and the technical analysis is about finance, and the software section in the article is fairly small. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 25 December 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 and redirect‎ to Glossary of computer science. Makes sense to redirect as a plausible search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of computer software terms[edit]

Glossary of computer software terms (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 Glossary of computer science which covers the same topic. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - First of all, there are only 4 terms on this 2016 list. Secondly, this was created by a sockpuppet of a now-blocked sock master. — Maile (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Only 4 terms, redundant article with a better replacement as seen above. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:15, 29 December 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. Daniel (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Approx[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT, no independent sources covering the subject, non-notable software. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 25 December 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. Complex/Rational 15:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belize–Brazil relations[edit]

Belize–Brazil relations (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 contains no information about diplomatic relations between the two countries. Interstellarity (talk) 15:10, 25 December 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 Moons of Saturn#Confirmed. ✗plicit 14:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S/2019 S 18[edit]

S/2019 S 18 (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:NASTRO. See this precedent as well. 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the only one or more? Since I found some notability to some 63 new moons of Saturn on this website: [2] Ladesh88 (talk) 08:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also said this here Ladesh88 (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, the moons S/2004 S 21, S/2004 S 28, S/2004 S 31, S/2004 S 36, S/2004 S 37 and S/2004 S 39 should be deleted as well. They're not notable, yet have their own articles. Ladesh88 (talk) 13:55, 26 December 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 Polymixis xanthomista. ✗plicit 14:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xanthomixis (moth)[edit]

Xanthomixis (moth) (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)

Obviously a later homonym of Xanthomixis Sharpe, 1881. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 12:48, 25 December 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. Deletion is unopposed. Sandstein 09:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BCX (software)[edit]

BCX (software) (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 haven't cited any reliable sources to warrant its notability since its creation in 2005. Most of its material reads like advertisement taken from official website. AfD is started after PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:NSOFT. Google search shows only downloads and random forums, no reliable sources. It's just not notable. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:52, 25 December 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Mattielig[edit]

Daniele Mattielig (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 have been a semi-pro footballer and not meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails in every category. No justification for the article or indication of even a modest notability. Easy delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:07, 27 December 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current American Indoor Football team rosters[edit]

List of current American Indoor Football team rosters (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)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A collection of sports rosters should not be created just to need to be updated continually, when that info can be obtained elsewhere. And no sources were even cited. Andre🚐 06:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, American football, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NOTDATABASE applies here. Concur with the nom. User:Let'srun 14:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Let'srun and @Andrevan why doesn’t it apply? Leagues like the IFL and NAL have List of their current rosters? So why can’t the AIF have one?
    none of them have sources on them and they are allowed to stay and be verified ParkerLyme (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide the links to these unsourced pages so I can file to delete them Andre🚐 01:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrevan
    List of current National Arena League team rosters, List of current Indoor Football League team rosters
    But the MLB, NFL, and NBA do the same thing with their lists
    I think it is just a thing sport pages do ParkerLyme (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just tag them as refimprove for now, and give people a chance to add any sources. Andre🚐 03:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrevan thing is there is a whole category for lists of these types of rosters
    List of current AFC team rosters, List of current CFL team rosters, List of current NFL team rosters, List of current NBA team rosters, etc.
    Every sports league does this so I think it is just a normal practice here on Wikipedia
    None of them in the Category of Lists of current team rosters use references
    Look for yourself because by that logic you are giving me for the deletion of this article and the others I mentioned they should all be deleted
    Because there is no way to put official sources for rosters other than linking their roster websites on the templates ParkerLyme (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Er... yeah. I mean, there's WP:OSE to bear here, but the existence of these doesn't mean they don't need sources. Andre🚐 03:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It just doesn’t make any sense any more because most of these pages have been here for years and probably decades and never once have they been flagged
    So exactly what are guidelines for all these templates
    There has to be consistentcy one can’t go while the others do the exact same thing
    The thing you mentioned said that isn’t the greatest argument but if there are 33 other articles that exist and have for a long time doing the same thing then apparently there is some guideline here neither of us is aware of
    Not trying to start an argument but we need consistency ParkerLyme (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Consistency is not actually something that we need. We need WP:RS, and I'm quite aware of this, and it applies to all articles. Please see WP:V. If there are 33 articles that lack any kind of sources, they all need to be improved or removed, in my humble opinion. Nothing personal. Andre🚐 04:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails LISTN, and just reproduces the (non-independent, primary) roster lists at the teams' respective websites. Unlike NFL lists where there could be some claim to navigational utility and for which secondary independent sources most definitely exist, this and many of the other lists don't serve any useful purpose for navigation (due to almost all the entries being non-notable) and don't provide info beyond that of a database. Readers are much better served visiting the league or team sites where they can see automatically updated rosters with more info on individual players.
JoelleJay (talk) 17:06, 26 December 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 14:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech abuse clinic[edit]

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

The article depends on two sources, one of which is a press release, and the other of which is a short article on the clinic at Cornell. It has been tagged for several months as non-notable, and the creator suggested at the talk page that they might write an article themselves to be published and used as a source to establish notability. There are no new, independent secondary sources that would establish notability. Banks Irk (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not enough citations and references. The article is not notable enough. killer bee  05:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the article talk page, the creator, while adding a ref from a connected source, acknowledged that there is a lack of secondary coverage. Banks Irk (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I do not think there are enough articles covering tech abuse clinics in general. It would seem the article originated from this website which groups two of the three organisations: [4]. For TECC, we have [5] and [6], and for CETA we have [7], [8], and non-significant coverage at [9], [10]. So at least two of these three orgs are independently notable, but the grouping in the article is not. Darcyisverycute (talk) 14:17, 25 December 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 03:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timemaster (film)[edit]

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

Had no sources when I PRODded, but now it's got a TV Guide review which is good. However, I couldn't find a source for the Saturn Award nomination (and I don't know that one nomination is as valuable as a win would be given the language of NFILM) and I don't think the TV Guide review alone saves it. If more coverage can be found then this is safe, but as is I would still delete it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:27, 25 December 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 01:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Bay Tower[edit]

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

The article hasn't had any substantial updates since 2016 and I can't find any news about the tower after 2011-ish, so I think it can assumed this project was scrapped, and in that case, it's probably not notable enough to remain. LynxesDesmond 🐈 (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Massachusetts. LynxesDesmond 🐈 (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with your assessment Sgroey (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any further news (or anything) about this proposed tower that I think was never built. The small one paragraph now hardly seems worth keeping. Nothing has appeared since the two sources used, and I don't think anything will at this point... Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom and others. I'm not convinced work for this tower was ever even started based on an apparent lack of news coverage. Bsoyka (talk) 05:31, 25 December 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 01:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phone Up Studios Inc[edit]

Phone Up Studios Inc (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 seeing how this passes WP:NCORP. The creator is possibly an undisclosed paid editor, as blocked user MilesJ22 (talk · contribs), who was associated with Abtach/WikiProfessionals was also trying to create an article about this company. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hemiauchenia, I appreciate your diligence in scrutinizing contributions to Wikipedia. Firstly, I want to emphasize that I am not a compensated editor, nor am I directed by any external entities to contribute to Wikipedia. My involvement in editing Wikipedia articles is solely driven by a genuine interest in sharing accurate and relevant information with the wiki-community.
Regarding the association with @MilesJ22, the blocked user connected to Abtach/WikiProfessionals, I want to make it clear that I have no affiliation with either the mentioned user or these organizations. Any similarity in the attempt to create an article about Phone Up Studios Inc. is purely coincidental.
I recently became interested in editing content related to Phone Up Studios Inc. due to their significant acquisition of a town. This event caught my attention, and I believed it would be valuable to contribute to the documentation of such a noteworthy development.
my intent is to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith, providing accurate and unbiased information to the best of my abilities. I have no personal or professional connections to Phone Up Studios Inc. or any individuals associated with the articles I create or edit. - Thank you Bizarre90 (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you generate this response with ChatGPT? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not. I wrote my response in a respectful manner? Bizarre90 (talk) 01:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The sources are promotional junk, and utterly fail to meet WP:RS standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to the above, it should be noted that back in January 2023, Phone Up Studios Inc issued a press release where it describes itself as a "Multi-million dollar company operated by a Middle School Student", and further states that CEO Vasquez established the company "at the age of 13, with over 65,000 employees according to records in January 2023" It seems I cannot link the press release, as the host, issuewire.com, has just been placed on our blacklist. No doubt Google will find it if anyone is interested.While we don't cite press releases as WP:RS (or at least, not for anything regarding notability, etc), we can certainly use them as bullshit-detectors. There seems precisely zero possibility that a company of that size, even if founded by an adult, would attract no comment whatsoever in credible mainstream business sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Pure PROMO spam, this is the only thing I can find, PR item [11]. What's used for sourcing isn't useful. Oaktree b (talk) 02:28, 25 December 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_December_25&oldid=1193073121"