Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 01	October 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Box, Cleveland County, Oklahoma[edit]

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

If so little is known about it, then it is, by definition, unnotable. Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Normally I am all in favor of deleting articles about dots on maps known only by a name and GIS coordinates. But in this case, Ref. 2 seems to be based on an actual researched book, so there may be some information from which to write an article. This source is probably not available online (I didn't check) but that doesn't subtract from its reliability. Assuming this source is RS, a keep is in order since there is some information out there. If not, delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep- according to this it seems pretty notable. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and this book PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Oklahoma. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have been a recognised community, so meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NGEO. No evidence this was a populated legally recognized place, no sources above, in article or BEFORE show this meets GNG, nothing meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 14:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- A full book solely on this topic is absolutely direct and in-depth coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An entire 290-page book on this community clearly demonstrates notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks like the book is self-published [1] and a self-published source is generally not held to be a reliable source WP:RS/SPS. The book therefore might not help to establish notability under the WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. There's a copy of the book for sale on eBay. The link is here if anyone wants to peruse its content [2] (Disclaimer: I am not the seller and am not encouraging anyone to buy it). Also, note that the webpage [3] is by the same author and is based on excerpts from the book. There's this in the Cleveland County Leader, referring to plots of land in Boxville [4] and evidence of a place called Box [5]. Could be further references from the same newspaper. If the sources presented can be considered reliable and sufficient verification for GEOLAND as a legally, recognised populated place, I'd go for keep. Rupples (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
●Comment- Wouldn't The fact that the book has an LCCN number and is listed in The Library of Congress database and the Daughters of The American Revolution Database Prove that the book is reliable and notable? PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may led some weight but the reliable sources rule suggests some editorial oversight is required. Also, it would help if the author had published other work and was say, an acknowledged local history expert. Depends how strictly one applies the guidance. The subject matter doesn't seem to be particularly contentious so can we be allowed to give benefit of the doubt? I'm not sure, and that's the reason why I haven't formally !voted. Rupples (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is self-published, the fact that 290 pages can be written shows that there had to have been a decent amount of coverage of the place for the book to exist in the first place - the eBay listing of the book has a picture that seems to show an entire section of it is dedicated to a list of newspaper articles about the place. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A historical community and Wikipedia is, amongst other things, a gazetteer. Djflem (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added "Oklahoma Outlines". Wichita Daily Eagle. December 30, 1903. p. 4. Retrieved October 7, 2023. Near Lexington, Cleveland County, is a town named Box. Djflem (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. The fact that the book is included in the LCCN should lend enough creditability to the book's author to consider them a "Subject-matter expert". Therefore, per WP:SELFPUB, the source can be considered reliabile and as significant coverage for both verifiability and notability purposes.4meter4 (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GEOLAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GEOLAND. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 9 October 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!} 22:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoroa Rock[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEONATURAL. Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New Zealand and Islands. Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In agreement with the nominator that this likely fails notability under WP:GEONATURAL for lack of sources. Rupples (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to uncover any RS for this island. Lightburst (talk) 17:53, 9 October 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!} 23:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Public insurance adjusting[edit]

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

The topic of this article is already covered in public adjuster, which is also written less like an essay (WP:ESSAY) and makes use of paragraphs. -- Primium (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This wall of text with no (or hardly any) citations is already covered as above, we don't need this. TNT. Oaktree b (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted, the topic is already covered, altho with a pretty poor article. This one is even worse.TheLongTone (talk) 15:18, 3 October 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 alleged Sony ransomware hack[edit]

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

Apparently, the hack did not happen. So far, it's only claimed by the hackers. There are no official confirmations from either Sony or from credible sources. And the hacking, it might well be a hoax, and a scam. (You can check this video by popular Youtuber Mutahar, who even mocked this very Wikipedia article, also was amazed how a possible hoax like this is being portrayed as fact in Wikipedia without any official confirmation or credible reporting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjmCFzz0WIo) So, this article is stating a hoax or an alleged hacking as a fact, hence either should be changed from top to bottom with correct information and renamed to something like 2023 Sony Ransomware Hack Hoax or 2023 Sony Alleged Ransomware Hack/whatever maybe suitable, otherwise be deleted completely. Note that, sources that report the hacking, they never confirmed the hacking, but states the hacking is claimed by a group. However, there are brim sources that make it look like the hack has indeed happened without any fact checking. X (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Likely TOOSOON, there's something here that either did or didn't happen, it's unclear yet. Incubate it in draft space until we get a better idea of what's going on exactly. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draft (disclaimer: creator). I can see the TOOSOON arguments being made. Not convinced that this is deletion-worthy though. If it ends up being a hoax, I do think that RS's will cover it; though we won't be able to do this formally because of CRYSTALBALL, maybe 2023 Sony ransomware hack hoax becomes a thing? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Computing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This subject fails WP:GNG and at least for the moment is WP:TOOSOON due to a lack of independent, secondary coverage regarding what exactly happened. Putting this in draft space for the moment appears to be the best solution for the time being until further sourcing comes out. User:Let'srun 02:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL, and Oaktree b. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per above a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:41, 9 October 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!} 23:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of dishes and foods created after the Columbian exchange[edit]

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

As it stands, this is a list of impossibly broad scope, as it potentially encompasses any dish invented or modified from the late 15th century to the present day. The main article on the Columbian exchange#Effects already discusses at length the crops and food products that were introduced and traded, including a comprehensive list, making this a redundant fork of a much better presented article. This list is currently unsourced, save for a cookbook entry that does not discuss the actual topic. There are, of course, many, many sources discussing the effects of the Columbian exchange in terms of food products and the culinary arts, but even those would not justify a list of every individual dish that was invented or modified as a result, which is what this list's purpose appears to be. Rorshacma (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What, no hamburgers, hot dogs, pop tarts, popcorn, not even ratatouille ...? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Impossibly broad cross-categorization, and unnecessary as per the Columbian exchange article as nom pointed out. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So the "finished" version of this list would then include any dish that contains on the one hand one or more of the "New World" crops maize, tomatoes, potatoes, bell peppers, and so on—and on the other hand also one or more of the "Old World" crops citrus, onions, wheat, rice, and so on? That seems extremely broad, to put it mildly (and that's not even counting the animal species). TompaDompa (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:SELCRIT. It is literally impossible to define what may or may not have been 'created' due to the Columbian exchange, and if you take the title at face value, it would include every recipe invented after 1492. Without a SELCRIT, a stand-alone list is not ready for mainspace. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:07, 5 October 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!} 23:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calan Ledingham[edit]

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

Young footballer doesn't yet meet GNG. The sources comprise a match report and a three-line quote from the player's manager about his debut. I don't see anything else of substance. He may be notable in the future but he's not there yet. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 22:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Football, United Kingdom, and Scotland. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 22:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Two name drops in game recaps in article, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for a BLP. // Timothy :: talk 22:45, 8 October 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!} 23:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Davao Eagle[edit]

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

Paid promotion article which fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Another non-notable paid article by the same user was apparently deleted here but this one was missed it seems. None of the references in the article is enough for notability, some of them are primary sources, the website itself, and others either has only a name mention or does not have anything relevant, there is zero SIGCOV, my WP:BEFORE search could not find any SIGCOV to justify notability as well. Tehonk (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree: there's no there there. No in-depth coverage, nothing inherently or proven notable. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if deleted then can this be redirected to Davao Eagles as a plausible typo? Never heard of this website. --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Doesn't seem related to the MBL team. --- Tito Pao (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom lacks indepth coevrage fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:51, 9 October 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Burfield[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, only 2 appearances in major productions, and fails WP:GNG, NYT is a reliable source but is not significant coverage, only 1 sentence mentioning the actor. Mika1h (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mika1h (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP (I presume) fails GNG and NBIO. Found name is lists, nothing meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. I think the article is a SYNTH of IMDB info, doesn't meet BLP sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 22:57, 8 October 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 - withdrawn. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Heinisch[edit]

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

A7 was incorrectly declined as "Not eligible for speedy delete", despite the fact that the article makes no credible claim to significance, which is the sole criterion for an A7.

It was then claimed that "A search brings up enough citations to possibly indicate notability." None were added to the article, unfortunately, and when I searched, I got nothing except SEO junk. Even limiting to books and checking GScholar didn't produce anything significant. The dewiki article has no additional sources to pull from.

In the absence of any significant coverage or even a credible claim to significance, we can't retain this article on the strength of a database entry. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Germany. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Nothing in JStor, Gscholar or the Wiki Ref library. This is about all I could find [6]. I'm almost wondering if he was removed from the history books by the Germans during WW2, there isn't really anything about him out there. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has an entry in Benezit Dictionary of Artists (WP:LIBRARY link: [7]) and in [8] (which provides additional references). Looks like some biography in [9] as well. Jfire (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listed in the Getty ULAN, with references down at the bottom [10]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some citations and rearranged the gallery, removing some items, provided link to commons. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:41, 3 October 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 Baron Northbourne. Any issues with the target article are better discussed on that article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 15:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles James, 6th Baron Northbourne[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO: I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources (or anywhere else, really). Never sat in the House of Lords, so WP:NPOL isn't met; and being a Deputy Lieutenant, a ceremonial title, is insufficient, since it has been found several times at AFD to not be enough to satisfy our notability guidelines. The two offline sources in the article are not independent from the subject, and are not about the subject. Pilaz (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, United Kingdom, and England. Pilaz (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Redirection to Baron Northbourne seems to be a good WP:ATD. Curbon7 (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baron Northbourne, per lack of sufficient sourcing.

JoelleJay (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I question the value of the Baron Northbourne page - it has only original sources - so I don't see any value in the redirect. Each of the Barons listed there is blue-linked, which tells me that all of those articles need to be checked. I suspect there are others that do not meet notability, and I'm not feeling too great about the BaronN page in general. Lamona (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An otherwise notable article being poorly sourced is not a good argument against redirection to it. Also, most of the other barons are notable as MPs, though feel free to check the others. Curbon7 (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't just a matter of sourcing. The Baron Northbourne page is pure genealogy. It's not a person, it's a title, and although there are a few of the BaronN's for which there are third-party sources (see Walter James, 4th Baron Northbourne), the BaronN page itself is just genealogy. If anything, BaronN should be a disambiguation to the few BaronN's for whom there are sources. Lamona (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baron Northbourne. Whether that article fulfills Wikipedia's notability requirements is a separate issue and for now the redirect is a sensible AtD. Rupples (talk) 01:23, 9 October 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 Yesiplevo. (though apparently this Merge has already been done so this closure is a formality). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shkolny, Vladimir Oblast[edit]

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

This article Only Has 2 Sentences & an infobox, only has 3 sources. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Europe, and Russia. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NGEO and I do not speak Russian, but one link is an external map, another is broken, and third I am blocked from. The claim is 4 people living there makes me doubtful more sources exist, absent anything else extraordinary about this place. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link you were blocked from is just a distange mesurment from Shkolny to Kolchugin. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems to be a census settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
census settlements are not inherently notable PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally if a settlement has census data its legally recognized per WP:GEOLAND. Though per some of the comments below it might not be so I'm not sure. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete Not having dealt with Russian census numbers, and given the inaccessibility of the source, what I see on GMaps makes me highly suspicious that we're seeing some of the same issues we saw with the Iranian census, not to mention that the phrase "rural locality" sounds to me like "not a town". Also, both the Russian and Ukrainian articles describe it as being part of Esiplevo, which actually does look something like a small town. Mangoe (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Basically per Mangoe. It is not at all clear that a "rural locality" (Selo) should be interpreted as a "legally recognised populated place". There is no evidence of any form of government or administration at this level of the kind you would expect to see for a legally-recognised settlement. Four people is literally just a house or two. The location given in the article is an empty field. Школьный literally just means "school" and it's entirely possible that this is simply the location (or former location) of a local school that has been used as a reference point in the Russian census. This is indeed very reminiscent of the mass-created Iranian abadi articles.

Really we've seen too much mass-creation of articles about locations in CEE and elsewhere based simply on single entries in electronic databases and problematic articles like this one are the result of that. FOARP (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS - looking in just the same district I also see Polyany, Kolchuginsky District, Vladimir Oblast (literally, just "fields", the location is empty forest, and it appears to be a neighbourhood of Kozlyat'yevo), Metallist, Vladimir Oblast (appears to be a metal-works), Litvinovo and Litvinovo (settlement), Vladimir Oblast (two selo that are obviously the same thing and possibly are both just neighbourhoods of Kolchugino), Kliny (selo), Kolchuginsky District, Vladimir Oblast and Kliny (settlement), Kolchuginsky District, Vladimir Oblast (again, obviously the same thing). Yes, this looks exactly like the situation with Iranian abadi. FOARP (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mangoe and FOARP. Looks like another pointless statistical designation, no reason it should be a standalone.

JoelleJay (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a legally-recognised, populated place. The editors above might not like WP:GEOLAND, but it is a policy, and a local consensus here can't wave it away. – Joe (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, as an WP:ATD it should be merged with the nearby village of Yesiplevo. – Joe (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"This is a legally-recognised, populated place" - What is supposed to be the legal recognition here? That it is a selo? But selo are not administrative units, and can have zero population (~20,000 Selo in 2012 were unpopulated according to the USDA) so how are they "legally recognised populated places"?

Selo are essentially census tracts which are excluded under GEOLAND. Even if you believe GEOLAND applies, GEOLAND only creates a presumption of notability, and any presumption can be rebutted, as it has been decisively here.

We are looking at a street in Esiplevo with a school on it (as can be seen from the address on that street, all given as "Esiplevo" in GMaps), not an independent village, and as with any street, there is nothing here to merge and no need to redirect the Russian word for "school" to a random town in central Russia. FOARP (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there any more support for a Merge with another location? Also, the brevity of an article is not a good rationale for deletion, PaulGamerBoy360, so I wouldn't mention that fact in future deletion nomination statements. We have plenty of stub articles that are two sentences long.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOLAND is not a policy; it is a notability guideline, and the section on settlements has proven to be a source of consistent controversy. Note that GNIS and GNS are specifically excluded, because we found so many issues (including outright mistakes) when we were doing this review in the US. Mangoe (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GNIS and GNS are, not-uncoincidentally, the gazetteer/census-type sources that we have analysed in the greatest depth and had the best opportunity to assess against other sources. And they were found to be deeply problematic when used in a way they were never designed to be used in - as a list of places notable enough to be covered in an encyclopaedia - rather than for their intended purpose as a list of names featured on maps.

The issues with GNIS and GNS are found in every other gazetteer/census-type source. They simply don't map one-to-one onto notable settlements in the way some editors would like them to. Instead they include places that aren't populated or are without a substantial or permanent population, or are parts of another settlement. The regular refrain that "of course there are secondary sources, how dare you suggest otherwise!" runs out of steam with an article like this: Shkolny never had a newspaper. Shkolny never had a church. Shkolny never had a post-office. Shkolny never had a council. Shkolny is literally just a street in the town of Esiplevo (or Yesiplevo in the romanisation used in our article) that is treated a separate thing strictly for the purposes of counting people on the Russian census. If you disagree with with this characterisation and want to say that Shkolny was something more than this - prove it.

Regarding merging, I cannot think what is worth merging from here. Covering an individual street, a street with nothing about it sourceable in secondary sources, within our article about the town of Yesiplevo is just massively undue. What are we going to say anyway? FOARP (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with FOARP. Nothing to merge, either. JoelleJay (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More bludgeoning from the usual suspects. GNIS and GNS have nothing to do with this article which, if you haven't noticed, is not in the US, and doesn't use them as sources. FOARP declares that selo are essentially census tracts but this is pulled from nowhere, with no evidence, contra the dictionary definition of selo (village), how (a type of populated place in Russia [and other Slavic-speaking countries], my translation), and what experienced Russian-speaking editors have patiently tried to explain to him. As a selo (again, literally defined as a populated place by ruwiki), Shkolny patently meets the notability guideline for populated places. No specific argument has been advanced against this, only general gripes about census sources and GEOLAND from a group that is trying to get it rewritten as we speak. This really doesn't feel like a good faith way to engage in an AfD to me. – Joe (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"a type of populated place in Russia" - yet example after example of places that weren't populated when they received the status of selo, have been cited (e.g., 17 km, Sakhalin Oblast, 8-y km etc.). We can indeed ask if Russian government reads their own dictionaries?

And again, as you yourself emphasise, GEOLAND is a guideline, that gives a presumption of notability, and any presumption can be rebutted. In this case, it is rebutted by a simple reference to the map and the RU Wiki article, both of which make it part of Yesiplevo. GEOLAND can never trump WP:NOT, which specifically admonishes us not to turn Wikipedia into a directory/dictionary. FOARP (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're talking about places that are literally on the other side of the world from Shkolny? Do you ever drop the stick? – Joe (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Russia is a large country" is not a reason to keep articles about non-notable locations within it. FOARP (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took it for granted that Shkolny is a selo when FOARP said it above, but it actually isn't. Both the article and the three sources it describe it as a posyolok (settlement), another type of populated place in the Russian system. So much of the above discussion, on the notability of sela as a group, is irrelevant. – Joe (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, not even a selo but even a lower grade of settlement? I'm not sure how this is supposed to be a keep argument. FOARP (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yesiplevo. There is not enough for a stand-alone article, but the gazetteer-type information is worth preserving, Nominator could have just boldly merged. Also merge Novosyolka (Yesiplevskoye Rural Settlement), Kolchuginsky District, Vladimir Oblast and Barykino (Yesiplevskoye Rural Settlement), Kolchuginsky District, Vladimir Oblast Aymatth2 (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you verify it's a locality? FOARP claims it is just a street. If that's the case he might be right about not bothering to merge. He has a habit of ignoring me for whatever reason so I'll ask you instead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The three sources cited in the article call it a posyolok (settlement). FOARP, as far as I can see, hasn't provided any references for his various assertions to the contrary. – Joe (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly it clearly has only one street on the map (which you referred to earlier?) and secondly there's our Wiki article which states the Shkolny is (in machine translation) "part of the Yesiplevsky rural settlement". FOARP (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "rural settlement" a formal subdivision too, like a municipality? Could it be more like a hamlet just to the southwest of the main settlement? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a one-street rural settlement that’s part of another larger rural settlement (Yesiplevsky). These Russian micro-units (particularly the rural settlements with zero population, of which there are 20,000 in Russia according to USDA) simply don’t map easily on to a hamlet/village division. FOARP (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can think of several one street micro hamlets we have articles for with 3 or 4 people in the UK which have decent length articles. There doesn't appear to be information available for this currently, but does at least have some people living there, so a redirect and very brief mention in the larger settlement article makes sense, though it wouldn't be much of a loss to delete it. If you have a concern about the notability of Russian micro units with zero people living there it might be worth starting a new discussion. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Aymatth into the nearby notable selo of Yesiplevo. Merge is already done. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:55, 5 October 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!} 03:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPA London[edit]

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

NOT Encyclopedic Content (WP:NOT) - The provided content describes the history and background of SPA London, including its origins and branches. While this information is informative, it lacks depth and does not provide a comprehensive understanding of the charity's impact, or significance. An encyclopedic article should ideally cover these aspects in more detail.
Notability (WP:N and WP:ORG): The article provides some historical background about SPA London (, including its origins and expansion to the UK. However, it lacks specific information about the charity's notable impact, achievements, or recognition. To meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, a charity article should demonstrate WHY the organization is significant, its activities, and its impact on society or its field. This article currently does not provide enough information to establish notability in my opinion. There is also NO significant event or independent coverage (that I could find)

Pranjal.3029 (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Pranjal.3029 (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the article content concerns the origins and operations of the wider Shree Prajapati Association in the UK. Although each of their geographical locations is separately registered with the Charity Commission, with the Leicester and Birmingham branches far larger judging from their accounts, if there is a case for an article (and I am not seeing evidence to sustain that), then it should be for the overall organisation rather than this local branch. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Considering this relative to WP:BRANCH (for its current London-centric scope) or WP:NONPROFIT for the potential wider rescoping I suggested above, I do not see the evidence to demonstrate attained notability here. AllyD (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current “source” is a directory link with no information. I cannot verify that this organisation exists. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:47, 7 October 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Martin Walker[edit]

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

This is going to be a very odd AfD, I will admit, because at a glance this looks like a very feature complete article. However, a deeper look at it shows it's taking discussion about the game the characters is from, Spec Ops: The Line, and trying to inherit notability for the character separate of it. A massive amount of the reception section is discussing the game's plot and the impact of it, but not showing how the character itself is notable or examined on its own outside of it.

WP:BEFORE shows a similar case, where discussion of the character is completely bound to reactions to the game and its story. Walker isn't shown to be independently notable or discussed outside of that context. Even the cited book 100 Greatest Video Game Characters provides just a reduced summary of the game's plot with no examination of the character.

What little is here that is about the character could be merged into the game's article, what little is here that isn't already covered in said article. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I scrolled to the reception section and examined the first two references cited inline. Those alone are sufficient for WP:GNG:
1. The Andergard academic journal paper [11] is a huge depth of secondary coverage focused on the character. Here's some:
  - "Captain Martin Walker is at first glance a conventional hero – white, male, representing not only western civilisation but also the US Armed Forces, which is to say upholding the hegemonic social order, as discussed by Hourihan (1997, 58). This ties in to various other narratives where a protagonist is in the service of the military – usually the US Armed Forces – and turns out to be the hero who rescues his comrades held as prisoners of war, or who thwarts the villainous enemy leader’s plans, and so on. Walker is assumed at the beginning of the game to be exactly this – a heroic soldier doing his duty in service of his country, and by extension in service of the western world. His mission is a rescue operation, and Konrad’s original task was assisting with the evacuation of the storm-riddled Dubai, both noble and heroic endeavours.
    ...
    "Later Walker faces US soldiers who have gone rogue, which represent an active force from within western society working to destabilise social order (Hourihan 1997, 144). Walker’s use of deadly force is at first portrayed as done in self-defence, as well as being further justified through the naturalisation of violence when performed by the hero (Hourihan 1997, 98). It can even be seen as ritualised (Hatto 1989, 228) because Walker is a soldier on a mission, and his enemies are ambushing him from unfair vantage points, and in general creating unfair situations to make the hero’s trials more challenging and thus more heroic. Walker also explicitly performs noble deeds in striving to reinstate a semblance of order to Dubai or at least to save the remains of the population, thus further solidifying him as a hero through his noble actions. However, this heroism ultimately breaks down piece by piece throughout the narrative."
2. The Keogh source in Vice is also good secondary coverage with choice quotes such as:
  - "By the end of the game, Walkers's squadmates are dead and he is an utterly broken man. The 'line' that the characters cross isn't a single moral choice but the constant, stubborn refusal to just stop killing people.
    "The majesty of The Line is in its character development, something completely absent from the majority of videogame stories. We are used to thinking of videogame characters as blank canvases, as mere vehicles for the player's intentions to travel from the start of a game to the end. Over the course of The Line, however, Walker is constantly changing, both mentally and physically. Every decision—especially the decisions he is unaware he is making—has a lasting effect on him. In the face of the horrors he witnesses and enacts, he slowly breaks down. At the start of the game, he is all military precision and calm, telling his squad to 'acquire targets.' By the end of the game, he is bloodied and torn, shouting at his squad to 'kill that fucker.' Voiced by videogame everyman Nolan North, Walker is a character study of the average videogame protagonist coming to terms with the messed up things we players make them do."

—siro χ o 02:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I personally think the in-article sources are insufficient, but I also found this article praising the casting choice for Walker, and talking specifically about Walker as a character. There also seem to be more mentions of Walker out there than are cited in the article. My personal opinion is that the article needs something of a rewrite or at least refocusing of its reception away from trivial mentions and listicles, as with many fictional character articles, as well as verbatim quotes of confusing academic terms, but that there is enough material to do it, per WP:NEXIST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great in-depth source analysis by Siroxo. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 01:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the general notability guideline with the significant coverage discussed above by siro. Jacona (talk) 12:25, 9 October 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 withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DannyLux[edit]

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

Not meeting the notability. - The9Man ^(Talk) 18:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He's signed to a major record label, so that passes notability. The mention in Billboard is trivial, but solid, unsure about the LA Times, it appears to be a blog-column. I think it's just past notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And an NPR extended interview/music review (as they do) [12], with Rolling Stone [13]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The notoriety of Mr. Balderrama is vast when it comes to the young Latin American community, from Portuguese-speaking Brazil to the United States. Having opened Coldplay shows already shows that he has some relevance, and by the way, he's also being one of the presenters of the Latin Billboard awards on the 7th of this month. May the best be done, thank you for your attention to the article. [14] Henrique Freire Tubbs (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: above comments are valid. I would like to join the said ideas and keep them.--Correspondentman (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn: As per WP:HEY. Requesting closure. - The9Man ^(Talk) 13:36, 3 October 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 23:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gardens of India[edit]

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

In my WP:BEFORE, I tried to find source to push this company over WP:NCORP/WP:GNG and I couldn't find anything that would. The two current sources are press releases. The article was initially draftified, but un-draftified by the creator later, so I am going to AfD for community consensus. Previously there were other sources in the article, but those were removed for not mentioning the company. In failing to pass notability standards, this should be deleted as it does not seem at the current moment, even if this were to be draftified, enough sources could be found for notability, unless I have missed things in BEFORE, which is possible as it is hard to specifically find this company given its somewhat generic name, and hits are given for unrelated things that mention gardens in the nation of India. TartarTorte 18:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and India. TartarTorte 18:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 18:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Their slick website has an "as seen in" footer with press logos, implying secondary coverage in RS, but Google site search turns up press releases and sponsored content from a few of them, and nothing at all from the rest. Might be two IT students flogging tea out of a flat. Wikishovel (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable company. My search turned up nothing that might be utilized to prove notability. 111.92.123.60 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A article on a recent new venture, sourced to press releases around their launch. The given sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH and I am not finding better. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 7 October 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 23:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Urquhart[edit]

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

Seems to be WP:TOOSOON for an article at the moment. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of suitable redirect Looks to fail WP:GNG as nom states, and is likely WP:TOOSOON. There's not a suitable redirect here, so reluctant delete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also adding to New Zealand deletion sorting list to promote fuller discussion. Paora (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Paora (talk) 08:29, 5 October 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 23:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Scientific Center RAS[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and organization-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and Russia. UtherSRG (talk) 17:08, 2 October 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. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 05:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Díðrikur á Skarvanesi[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and artist-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Denmark. UtherSRG (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as the earliest known Faroese painter. His paintings are in the permanent collection of the National Gallery of the Faroe Islands, and Norwegian Wikipedia has what looks like a RS in Faroese. Jfire (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any documentation for him being the earliest Faroese painter. A strange claim, so I removed it. Still he seems to only have 4 or 5 known images,^[1] with one of them being used on a 2020 stamp (fact and citation added to the article). Wikidata states "The entities Díðrikur á Skarvanesi and Faroe Islands should be contemporary to be linked through country of citizenship, but the latest end value of Díðrikur á Skarvanesi is 8 October 1865 Gregorian and the earliest start value of Faroe Islands is 1 April 1948." I therefore changed citizenship to Kingdom of Denmark with AKL Online as the reference. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Skarvanes". Visit Sandoy. Retrieved 3 October 2023.

Keep While there are limited sources about him in English, there are some fairly extensive articles about him in Faroese (e.g. Fuglamyndirnar eftir Díðrik á Skarvanesi) which support notability per WP:GNG. Uffda608 (talk) 14:27, 3 October 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 23:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As stated in the 2012 AfD, if the individual wikis aren't considered notable, how can the umbrella organization be? A google search for the page title only comes up with hits from various wikis, which are not reliable sources. Bensci54 (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, most of the sources don't seem to cover the alliance in-depth, and are trivial mentions. If said sources aren't straight from the wikis themselves, that is. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Andre🚐 21:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article's recreation was unwarranted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 8 October 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 23:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shredded Corpse[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and band-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Arkansas. UtherSRG (talk) 16:38, 2 October 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!} 06:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lepidoptera that feed on Aster[edit]

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

Don't really see how this can at all be construed as a notable topic; there's probably tons of butterflies that feed on the 170 species of Aster that commonly occur around the world, but no RS discusses them as a group. AryKun (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Lists. AryKun (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be support for deleting the whole series of lists, so I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete Maybe this would work as a category? But even then, that's weirdly specific. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Contextual note: A search for intitle:"List of Lepidoptera that feed on" shows that there are 66 lists in this series. Almost all of them are similar to this one, but some may have had some additional work. I believe these were all based on HOSTS - a Database of the World's Lepidopteran Hostplants which was a major work by the Natural History Museum, London, but which has not been kept up to date. It says "Please note: HOSTS will not be further updated or amended. This dataset is an archival resource and has been made available in full for those who wish to re-use and build on the data, not as an ongoing project." Oddly it also says it was last updated March 24, 2023. I suspect deletion is the right choice, but the entire list should be addressed. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 21:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SchreiberBike, I'd like to add all of those lists to this nomination, but don't know how; could you help? HOSTS just seems to be a database, so I don't think its coverage of this subject contributes to notability at all. It's also clearly ridiculous to have lists of Lepidoptera that feed on genera with huge rages and hundreds of species, as is the case in many of these lists. AryKun (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AryKun: The instructions for doing that are at WP:MULTIAFD. There it suggests starting with one, then if there's clear consensus on that, doing the rest of them all at once in a separate process. I think that makes sense because this example isn't clearly listed as a reason to do multiple deletions, and I don't have time to figure out how to do it right now. It probably means this discussion and that discussion when it happens should be advertised fairly widely. If this plan makes sense to you and others, I will let WP:LEPID, WP:PLANTS and WP:BIOLOGY know. If you have other ideas, let's discuss. Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 12:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SchreiberBike, I've bundled the other lists into this discussion and notified the relevant Wikiprojects (I notified WP:TOL instead of Biology because Biology seems to high-level to be concerned with this specifically. AryKun (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AryKun, FYI, I added three pages to this AfD from Category:Lists of Lepidoptera by food that weren't included. I am not sure if you would also like to nominate Larval food plants of Lepidoptera. — The Earwig (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I would support extending this to the entire series identified in the comment above. This is several steps too far in the direction of using Wikipedia as a simple mirror of a database available elsewhere on the web. The content seems to consist entirely of the HOSTS DB, which under one freely accessible link already offers this exact information - including much more extensive contextual column sorting. I don't think that it would be an issue that the DB is no longer updated, since this is not exactly a rapidly evolving topic and in any case such lists need not claim to be complete. But it is a problem that this constitutes a single-source database dump. Not what we are here for. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this topic would work if it were one level of organisation higher (i.e. Lepidopteran families specialised onto Asteraceae) but I don't think sources are granular enough to work at this level. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added the external link for the NHM host database to the Lepidoptera article in case these lists are deleted and the link is lost. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Leaning Keep) If sources like this (etc) exist (for hazel), is it not that the topic meets the requirement for WP:NLIST as it has been discussed as a group? So shouldn't this be kept and sourced rather than deleted? Procedurally speaking, having to check if each and every group has been the subject of extent literature may take a. lot. of. time. So there, too, leaning procedural keep. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty standard primary paper in the vein of "what species feed on what in this area" and doesn't contribute to notability imo. As another example, any large mammalian predator (eg the jaguar) will have many scholarly papers listing what other animals they eat; we just mention major ones in the main article and leave the rest, because it's basically just scientific trivia. AryKun (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Large mammalian predators are much less specialized in what they feed on then lepidopteran larvae, which may only feed on a single species of plant (Fender's blue butterfly only feeds on one subspecies of Lupinus sulphureus). For many lepidoteran species, it is far more feasible to list every plant they have been observed to feed on than it is to list every animal a jaguar has been observed to eat (however, that information would belong in the article on the lepidoteran species and doesn't necessarily justify lists like these). Plantdrew (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But we aren't listing what plants the butterflies are feeding on, we're listing what butterflies feed on the plants. So many of these genera have cosmopolitan distributions and dozens of species; there are hundreds, if not thousands, of butterflies that feed on them, and no notability to that collection of species. AryKun (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too specific and not appropriate for Wikipedia. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would say that a few of these lists are actually valuable to keep in place, though most are not. I would support a limited set of deletions, but not the wholesale elimination of all the articles. The criterion I would suggest is this: is the plant a major crop plant or keystone ecological plant (i.e., major tree or invasive species)? If so, then keep that particular list. That would mean oaks, pines, elms, pears, cotton, spruce, eucalyptus, alders, beeches, grasses, willows, Cirsium, birches, Solanum, Brassica, maples, Prunus, poplars, ash, grapevines, and Malus would easily pass that criterion. Obviously, I'm suggesting a rather subjective cutoff, but in principle I would argue that this is a fair parallel to Wikipedia's general requirements for "notability". A lot of the plants in the existing array of articles are really not that notable, and lists of their herbivores are not of general interest, but the ones I just mentioned (and perhaps a few ornamentals like roses) are well-known plants whose herbivores are diverse and noteworthy. I would not be averse to a discussion about this, here or in private, but - again - I don't like the idea of removing ALL of these articles. The only other comment I would make is that if a plant has an existing "List of insects that feed on X" then the lepidopteran list should be merged with that list, so the Lepidoptera-only list can be safely deleted. Yes, I'm suggesting a bit of care and research here, but I think it's merited. Dyanega (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most taxa in these lists have at a minimum several dozen species, and many have hundreds (grasses theoretically covers 13,000!). This is clearly ridiculous; at that point, there's thousands of butterflies and moths that sometimes feed on them; if any of them are particularly notable, just mention them briefly in the main article; otherwise, it's just database replication. AryKun (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand; the insects are not the criterion, it doesn't matter whether any of them are notable. It's the PLANT that should be notable. Oaks are notable, even if the associated moths are not. Speaking from a very (and strictly) practical viewpoint, it is very helpful to have a list of moths known to feed on a given plant if you are, like I am, an entomologist who is sent a sample of a moth from (e.g.) an oak. I can look at the list, and narrow the search to a very tiny subset of moths, instead of starting from scratch. Again, for keystone ecological plant and major crops, the list of known herbivores is valuable information. Dyanega (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could then look at the database we’re copying this from? I mean, this is a pretty clear NOTDATABASE violation, and I’m really struggling to see a situation in which a list of every lepidopteran pollinator of a cosmopolitan genus is helpful for identification. AryKun (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That claim depends on your perspective regarding the two main features of these existing articles. The first feature, the list of species per se, is, as you note, redundant; you could post links to HOSTS that have already had a search query performed, and use those links to replace the deleted articles (on the pages that presently link there). So, for example, this search query for oaks shows all the entries for oak-feeders, and to that extent then I would agree that replacing the links that presently point to (e.g.) "List of Lepidoptera that feed on oaks" is not the worst alternative. Linking to HOSTS could allow that particular utility to persist in the absence of full articles. However, the primary functional difference, and the main argument for retaining any of these articles, is that the HOSTS database (1) does not link to the articles for the various lepidopterans, or (2) explain what the insects ARE, like the Wikipedia articles (i.e., giving common names, or indicating whether they are specialist or generalist feeders). That functionality goes far beyond just giving the insect scientific name, and is absolutely unique to Wikipedia, so it deserves a little more than casual consideration prior to deletion. That's why the NOTDATABASE criticism is not accurate here; the database in question gives zero information on the various listed insects. Just look at a side-by-side comparison of that HOSTS query result above, and compare it to the List of Lepidoptera that feed on oaks article itself. For one thing, the WP article is significantly abbreviated (HOSTS has over 6,000 records, so the WP article is not just an unedited data dump), and there are some species listed in the WP article that did not come from HOSTS. I would argue that the WP article has a considerable amount of "value added" - including (and especially) the hyperlinking - that makes it much more than just a plagiarized database. Or are you claiming that no amount of value-added features or content can justify extracting information from a database and making it available here? Dyanega (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree with your comment, but I think that the information could easily go into information about a genus's or species's Ecology or other information section. For example Taraxacum has a section Food for wildlife where the "List of Lepidoptera that feed on dandelions" could be placed rather than as a stand alone article. I'm headed over there to place a comment too see if there would be an objection to doing that. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Here from this note. As much as I'd like to see more entomology info out there, these all run against WP:INDISCRIMINATE, especially with being primarily sourced to a database that isn't discriminating what is WP:DUE. If better sources highlight key feeders of a specific type of plant, then that could be listed in prose at a respective article, but I wouldn't be in favor of just moving lists to a given plant article. As others mentioned, a few primary scholarly sources will sometimes group descriptions by X feeders, but that doesn't confer notability to the whole group. Instead, a given group would have to have some pretty serious discussion as a whole group to warrant a list article. KoA (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per KoA: Wikipedia is not a database, these lists violate INDISCRIMINATE, and aside from HOSTS there is little scholarly discussion of all the lepidopterans that feed on a given plant. I would also like to point out the mangled titles: It should be "List of lepidopterans that feed on X". Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. It looks like someone just wanted to wikify HOSTS - A Database of the World's Lepidopteran Hostplants. To the extent that some of this information might be notable for Wikipedia, it would belong on a specific page, ideally with an additional source explaining why it's notable that a certain butterfly eats a certain plant. --Tserton (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: would these work as categories instead? That moves the maintenance responsibility to the species' pages while still providing a list of members for each group, which seems better, though we lose some of the organization and commentary. For species with specific hosts the category would be a defining feature but for less specialized species like Alcis repandata (which is on nine of these lists) that would likely be overcategorization. So maybe having categories for obligate hosts or nearly obligate is more maintainable. But is that useful? — The Earwig (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it'd be too useful. For obligate or near-obligate feeders on a particular species, it'd presumably be mentioned in the article text, and as you said, it'd be overcategorization for the rest. AryKun (talk) 19:40, 7 October 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 23:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Klinghoffer[edit]

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

Fails notability criterion. Tumnal (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Music, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Internationally known", yet little to no coverage. This is about all I can find [15] and it exists in French too, as a translation of the same article. Delete for lack of sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching the library journal database I can find a very small number of mentions (e.g. in faculty listings). There was a bio on a Microsoft learning advisory group page: "LiveCarta Introduces Distance Learning Advisory Board" but it was brief and not independent. I note that he has written a book and some articles, and that he has a youtube series. Nothing, though, that I see is near notability. Lamona (talk) 04:52, 6 October 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. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 15:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Allpress[edit]

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

Article was delete via PROD in 2017, citing his lack of significant roles or reliable coverage, then restored in 2020 after his death. That alone does not merit notability per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and he did not really get much coverage from it anyway. He had no major roles from the time the article was first deleted until his death and the awards he won do not seem to meet notability requirements for actors. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Feltex award seems to be the highest for TV actors in NZ, I think it's at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage of his death on Stuff [16] and The New Zealand Herald [17], New Zealand's two main news sources, makes it clear that he is notable. As the previous voter noted, the New Zealand Feltex Awards were the national television awards in New Zealand at the time he received actor of the year. His death also received coverage in other New Zealand publications not currently sourced in the article, and in The Independent (which refers to him having gained "international fame through his role as a blind piano tuner in Jane Campion’s Oscar-winning drama The Piano"). Definitely notable, but the article probably needs expansion to properly reflect that. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. A leading New Zealand television actor over several decades, as seen from his NZOnScreen bio. Won two Feltex best actor awards, the highest award in NZ TV at the time. Agree that the current state of the article doesn't do him justice, but if this guy isn't notable then we may as well all just pack up and go home. His obituary in Stuff describes him in the headline as an "Icon Kiwi actor", which is no hyperbole. Paora (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two lengthy obituaries by Stuff and the NZH alone demonstrates that he is notable. Schwede 66 16:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While it's weak based on the sources in the article, which are mostly obituaries, given the roles he's played, I believe that sources exist. We seem to have a bias against NZ topics, because it's one of the smaller and certainly most isolated of the significant English speaking nations. I'm tired of seeing NZ articles deleted not because they aren't notable, but because our editor base, consisting primarily of US and UK residents, aren't good at researching them. Lets Keep this one. Jacona (talk) 12:32, 9 October 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 23:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wristmeetrazor[edit]

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

I am finding hardly any significant coverage of this band, even from when they released their first album in 2019; most of the coverage I am finding is interviews or album reviews. There was some recent edit warring over the band members, none of which was sourced (and I cannot find any indication if/when membership changed). Primefac (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I concur with Primefac. I had started researching and got distracted otherwise I'd have nominated. This fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG as all sources fail the WP:golden rule. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there is an article citing the addition of a new member (Interview: Bassist Spotlight: userelaine (Wristmeetrazor) | No Echo), which i can add if this helps prevent deletion. Userelaine (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Interviews are not WP:IS and so do not count towards establishing notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it wouldn’t be added for notability, it would be added as a source for a member change, which wasn’t cited the first time. Userelaine (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is the primary criteria for determining if a subject is eligible for an article. Failing notability means the subject does not merit having an article. I again implore you to read the information at the links in this and other discussion instead of assuming you know what you are talking about, as you clearly have not read nor understood. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"assuming you know what youre talking about" youre right i have minimal idea because wikipedia editing and maintenance is confusing but im well aware of WP:DNB and am doing my best to understand, so please dont get rude. Userelaine (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I am duly chastised. You are a quick learner - something unusual in editors who start of as complainants. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
its okay, the internet is a stressful and aggressive place. i appreciate you all trying to help, and im sorry that im slow to understand. Userelaine (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Primefac and fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references that exist are either not significant mentions or else not independent. Nothing else coming to light. This fails notability under WP:BAND, as others have said. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the references are independent. the band didn’t pay for any of those articles - meaning they just aren’t notable. trying to find information about what *is* considered notable enough to keep this page up is just leading me to dead ends. i can try adding every article i know of but some direction that doesn’t feel like it’s up to personal interpretation would be helpful, if you’d be willing to give it. Userelaine (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read WP:SIGCOV, and, indeed, the whole of that page. The page is generic, and the specific guidelines in this case are WP:BAND but note that if you meet SIGCOV, you meet BAND too because that is criterion 1 of the BAND guidelines. Note also that independence is not just about payment for coverage. But I am a touch confused why you now want to prevent deletion when you proposed this article for deletion earlier today. [18]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
at the time i had proposed deletion because someone told me it was the only way to erase sensitive information from previous edits - until someone had pointed me to the article on Oversight. if the article must be deleted ill take it in stride and re-make it in the future when we have more sources, but at the moment id rather try to save it and have the edits including the personal information be suppressed. Userelaine (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ill read up on SIGCOV again, im no scholar so of course im confused but i just didnt understand how the articles listed that are specifically about the band and its album releases weren't considered non-trivial. i added some more citations to the article but ill try to read up more on the notability guidelines as well, but i might have to find an external explanation Userelaine (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the band has released two records on Prosthetic Records, a record label with a 25 year history, and just recorded a third this past February. under WP:BAND it appears that this would constitute notability. i will take it upon myself to update this article, now that its labeled COI anyway. Userelaine (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the COI template is to make it clear that you should not be editing a page for which you have a conflict of interest. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no one has added into in years, and the COI page just says its discouraged not disallowed, so i figured it would be best to add some info and mention that im in the band in the talk page. if i had more time than a week before deletion i would find someone that isnt me to do it, but now i feel pressured to try to meet the guidelines before the article is dumped Userelaine (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References don't have to be in the article to prevent deletion, you only need show that reliable sources exist. You may post them here in this discussion, or on the talk page of the article, and editors will review them against the guidelines. I would just caution that quality here is better than quantity. Focus on significant independent reliable secondary sources that discuss the band. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you!! i will compile a list, and add them either here or to the talk page. i appreciate you bearing with me trying to learn all of this. Userelaine (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

here are a handful of the more notable articles - please let me know if none of these apply, and if they dont, what i should be looking for in an article to prove notability! i just want to keep the article up so that i can eventually find someone to do some in depth writing on it since i cant do it myself directly

Wristmeetrazor explore catch-22 metaphor in “Anemic (The Same Six Words)” (altpress.com)

Wristmeetrazor & Knocked Loose's Isaac Hale talk expansive new record: "This is a new benchmark" (brooklynvegan.com)

Interview: Bassist Spotlight: userelaine (Wristmeetrazor) | No Echo

Interview: Wristmeetrazor Discuss Their New Album, Working w/ Isaac Hale of Knocked Loose + More | No Echo Userelaine (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not independent, reliable sources so cannot be used to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

so im looking for an article written about the band that doesnt include an interview? that will be tough but im sure one exists Userelaine (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This rule is not as strict as it seems and it has been twisted a bit during this discussion. An article about the band can contain an interview, but to be considered independent and reliable it must also contain journalistic research and analysis. A tough interview by a critical or skeptical journalist would also help. On the other hand, an article that is nothing but a friendly interview with softball questions would not be considered reliable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this makes sense! most of what we have is definitely interviews. there are also some more in-depth podcast interviews with individual members but i’m not sure if those could be cited or be considered substantial, though one of them was with Knotfest. i will keep an eye out, im on tour so unfortunately this one might die w this delete thread but again i’m more than willing to revisit having a better one written in the future Userelaine (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, no SIGCOV dxneo (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This one is closer than it seems, because the band has been mentioned in several reliable sources including Exclaim!, Consequence, Revolver, and Loudwire. However, I will have to cite WP:SIGCOV and its point about how someone needs to not only be mentioned in a reliable source, but that coverage must be significant. The band's notices are largely brief introductions and typically admit that the writer noticed them thanks to their eye-catching name. (Kudos to the band on this front, regardless.) Alas, we do not have much that is investigative or analytical. I will have to conclude that they've come close to reliable and significant media coverage but just don't quite reach WP's standards. Maybe in the future. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i appreciate that. worst case, after we put out this new record, i’ll look into finding a good article writer who can put something better together for us, since we’ll get a lot more coverage with new material. not the end of the world if this one goes since it hasn’t been kept up to date. Userelaine (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Err, please read WP:COI, specifically the section about disclosing. Mach61 (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
read the entire thread and you will see that i have. Userelaine (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have not followed the instructions in WP:DCOI. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:00, 5 October 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!} 23:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AvaGlide[edit]

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

The only things that I could find that weren't just mentions were both very brief. QuietCicada (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to pass the WP:GNG threshold for notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Eurogamer review (page 3) [19] and a Kotaku video review [20] Oaktree b (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two short reviews are not enough to pass the WP:GNG criteria. --Mika1h (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eurogamer (around 3 sentences about the game itself) and Kotaku coverage (have watched the clip and it's pretty much a short showcase of the game rather than a review) does not represent a significant coverage of the subject. My searches else bring announces, passing mentions and databases. Fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:56, 3 October 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!} 23:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Itse Amah[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or any WP:SNG. That he rejected bribe and made news headlines or even got promotion does not make him notable. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Nigeria, and Police. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not seem to meet notability, appears to be a mid-level police functionary. Not accepting a bribe isn't notable, perhaps the story around the bribery might be. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He did a noble work, shout-out to him; does this one event establish notability? Definitely not. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC) Reading Beans (talk) 00:17, 6 October 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SVGator[edit]

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

Completely based on primary sources, blogs, and sponsored articles, a quick web search did not give me anything that would indicate its notability. Note the "pr" word inside the url of the Digital Journal source. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Romania. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources independent from the subject - most fall below the thresholds demanded by the GNG, especially with respect to independence (sponsored articles, blogs). zf.ro is very likely reliable but the whole article reads like an interview, so it's not really independent either. The article also reads like WP:PROMO in its current state. Pilaz (talk) 13:42, 2 October 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.

Ron Weidberg[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 13:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 09:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 09:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Can certainly be improved but no reason to delete an entry about a well-known composer who has won prestigious awards in Israel.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Via WP:LIBRARY, I can confirm that the subject has an entry in Oxford Music Online, which is enough to meet WP:BIO. Jfire (talk) 13:49, 2 October 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 Minister for Education (Victoria). Star Mississippi 13:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of ministers for education in Victoria[edit]

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

Background: Page was initially split from Minister for Education (Victoria).

Because I believed that the content in Minister for Education (Victoria) wasn't sufficient for a stand alone article (see here), I undid the split and merged the pages together again. A PROD for this article was then contested.

Reason for deletion: This page is essentially a duplicate of Minister for Education (Victoria). ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 08:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 08:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Education. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge Really dumb move to split the list off, leaving just a rump sub-stub. It's perfectly fine (and preferable) to have both information about the position and a list of officeholders in the same article, even if you expect some expansion later. Reywas92^Talk 14:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't mind a redirect, but the redirect page will become a massive stub. JASpencer (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what that means, what is a "massive stub"? That's contradictory. We only need one page, not two, to describe the position and who has held it. Reywas92^Talk 17:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Retain a single page as before. Absolutely no need to two separate pages. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge - This meets WP:SPEEDY A10 as well as the analysis from Reywas92. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:00, 5 October 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 Minister for Health (Victoria). Star Mississippi 13:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of ministers for health in Victoria[edit]

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

Background: Page was initially split from Minister for Health (Victoria).

Because I believed that the content in Minister for Health (Victoria) wasn't sufficient for a stand alone article (see here), I undid the split and merged the pages together again. A PROD for this article was then contested.

Reason for deletion: This page is essentially a duplicate of Minister for Health (Victoria). ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 08:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 08:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge Really dumb move to split the list off, leaving just a rump sub-stub. It's perfectly fine (and in fact preferable) to have both information about the position and a list of officeholders in the same article, even if you expect some expansion later. Why would you make readers go to separate pages for this? There is no WP:SIZE basis for a split. Reywas92^Talk
Keep I don't mind a redirect, but the redirect page will become a massive stub. JASpencer (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what that means, what is a "massive stub"? That's contradictory. We only need one page, not two, to describe the position and who has held it. Reywas92^Talk 17:15, 2 October 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 Minister for Agriculture (Victoria). Star Mississippi 13:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of ministers of agriculture of Victoria[edit]

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

Background: Page was initially split from Minister for Agriculture (Victoria).

Because I believed that the content in Minister for Agriculture (Victoria) wasn't sufficient for a stand alone article (see here), I undid the split and merged the pages together again. A PROD for this article was then contested.

Reason for deletion: This page is essentially a duplicate of Minister for Agriculture (Victoria). ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 08:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 08:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Minister for Agriculture (Victoria) is fine in this case, as "List of <government position> of <administrative division>" is a reasonably common naming pattern. If it's cleaner to avoid the split history, delete and redirect is probably fine. I agree that it does not seem like a necessary split. —siro χ o 08:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is a good idea. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 08:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge/redirect Really dumb move to split the list off, leaving just a rump sub-stub. It's perfectly fine (and in fact preferable) to have both information about the position and a list of officeholders in the same article, even if you expect some expansion later. Why would you make readers go to separate pages for this? There is no WP:SIZE basis for a split. Reywas92^Talk
Keep I don't mind a redirect, but the redirect page will become a massive stub. JASpencer (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what that means, what is a "massive stub"? That's contradictory. We only need one page, not two, to describe the position and who has held it. Reywas92^Talk 17:15, 2 October 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 CSI:NY#Sheldon Hawkes. However, should target choice change, that can be handled editorially Star Mississippi 13:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Hawkes[edit]

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

Only source in the article is an episode recap, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to CSI: NY#Sheldon Hawkes. Spinixster (chat!) 07:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 07:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to List of CSI: NY characters. I hate deleting articles and think redirecting and merging here is a good idea as it means the info can be transferred here (and maybe condensed) and the article can be remade easily if someone finds sources demonstrating notability and real life context. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think merging to CSI:NY#Sheldon Hawkes is a better idea DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with both the nominator, Spinixster and DaniloDaysOfOurLives that a stand-alone article is unnecessary, and rather than delete it, we should point the user logically and directly to the content on the subject already available at a CSI article. Either of the above redirect targets is acceptable, with a slight preference for CSI: NY#Sheldon Hawkes. Jacona (talk) 12:48, 9 October 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 The Whitest Kids U' Know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Trumeter[edit]

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

Contested WP:BLAR, proposing redirect to The Whitest Kids U' Know. I was unable to find any significant coverage on the subject with a regular before search, nor did any results turn up with newspapersarchive.com outside of passing mentions in relation to the group. Justi yaya 07:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Justi yaya 07:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect perhaps merge a bit to The Whitest Kids U' Know. —siro χ o 08:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the "Whitest Kids" article, coverage is all about the group (a member recently died), nothing in particular for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
or !redirect I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 2 October 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. As stated repeatedly, no Merge can occur when there is no existing article to Merge TO. Please do not participate in AFDs and suggest Merges or Redirects when there is no target article. You making the proposal doesn't not cause these articles to suddenly come into being. If you are not ready to create the target article yourself, please do not make a suggestion to Merge or Redirect to a nonexisting article.

Feel free to have a future Merge discussion once the target article(s) is actually created. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1807 in Chile[edit]

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

Article does not meet general notability guidelines, includes empty sections, doesn't cite any sources, and is only 693 bytes. A y d o h 8 ( t a l k ) 04:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Chile. A y d o h 8 ( t a l k ) 04:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we not just merge all the "1800s in Chile" articles into one decade article? Are ten stubs really better than one semi-decent list where you may have to scroll once? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Merge. The information is worth having, but shouldn't be spread over ten articles. Athel cb (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not an article or a list, since it functions as a Category. I think that is the right navigation tool for this information. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as proposed. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Merge where? '1800s' is ambiguous as either the first decade of the 19th Century or, in almost all common usage, the entire century. How do we expect a reader to know we mean decades when everyone else means centuries? On a minor note, there are articles for every year. I assume the plan will be to consolidate all of them into decades. Is there a mechanism for that, or do we need 99 more AfDs? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rellisting comment, I echo others, what is the specific, existing Merge target article you are proposing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe AirshipJungleman29's intention was to create a new page called 1800s in Chile to collate all of the entries from 1800-1809. They can feel free to correct me if wrong. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was my suggestion, yes. I'm not sure I'd call it my intention, since it was a throwaway comment, but now that I've looked through all of the hundred 18[xx] in Chile article, I can find nothing so good about any of them to overrule WP:PAGEDECIDE. As for confusion, "1800s in Chile (decade)" should solve that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A closer can Merge to an existing article but can not create one where none exist. It's not helpful to propose new articles unless you are willing to spend the time to create it. DIY. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm completely confused now. It sounds like those advocating Merge have no existing target article in mind so no actual Merge can occur. This discussion is becoming a trainwreck.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to think of a way to to accomplish this via AfD with a merge to 1800 in Chile and rename to 1800s in Chile, but considering all the unlisted pages that also need merging, it's just not the right forum for that outcome. @AirshipJungleman29: I recommend starting a merge discussion on Talk:1800 in Chile as soon as this closes for all ten "180X in Chile" pages, and pinging all the participants here to that discussion. —siro χ o 09:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Would someone mind pinging me when this closes? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above keep as a redirect, to 1800s in Chile. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, OLIfanofmrtennant, 1800s in Chile doesn't exist so no article can be Merged to it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 1800 in Chile through 1809 in Chile to an 1800s in Chile article. The other nine merges can be WP:BOLD merges if this isn't the forum to find consensus for them. I'd also support merges into 1810s in Chile, 1800s in Argentina, and so on and so forth. As someone who has been working with articles like these for a while, the overwhelmingly stubby nature of these year articles is something I and the other WP:YEARS editors are painfully aware of. I and a few others are working to try to get something resembling encyclopedic coverage in these, but it's slow work, and I don't expect articles like 1807 in Chile will realistically get the attention they'd need to be their own articles. Merges like this are something that has been proposed without any real pushback (to my knowledge). If this is something we want to discuss more broadly, it can be added to the long list of discussions, arguments, and RfCs for sorting out this unloved corner of Wikipedia (there's a lot of required reading to catch up on all of them). After all, these exist not only for most years, but for most countries as well. Individual year in country articles can work for recent years (see 2021 in the United States or even 2021 in Botswana), but I don't know if there's a single example of a well-written 19th century year page. Ideally, they'd all look more like 2001, which I've been working on for a while, but that's the slow work I'm referring to. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of a series. If the other ten in the decade make sense, then keep all ten. Otherwise, merge to the decade. Do not use AfD for incomplete ideas to merge. There is no case for deletion, so speedy keep WP:Sk#1. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 7 October 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Albert Kay[edit]

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

Unreferenced/unsourced article, unable to find any reliable sources for subject online. Probably does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Also a possible conflict of interest I have found: the article's creator and primary contributor "Mrmediumvoltage" appears to also be the article's subject, "John Albert Kay". A few websites with the username "Mrmediumvoltage" have the name "John Kay" (such as [21]) or are connected with Kitchener, Ontario (such as [22] and [23] under "reviews"). RGKMA (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Would seem to be notable with the award win [24], although it's behind a paywall. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody can do better. "Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers" might be a valid notability claim if the article were sourced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but it is in no way "inherently" notable enough that just providing primary source verification in a directory entry self-published by the IEEE would be sufficient grounds for an article all by itself if the person is showing absolutely no third-party coverage in any WP:GNG-worthy media or books. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Researchers in industry as well as academics are covered by WP:NPROF, though it is much harder to source them since most of their work is published internally to their company. So we can have few articles about them. However in this case he was elected a a fellow of the IEEE, which criteria #3 mentions specifically: a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. The citation to the IEEE site is fine as a source for such honors. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As StarryGrandma notes, Fellow of the IEEE is explicitly one of the examples of meeting WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as mentioned above, clear case of WP:NPROF#C3 —siro χ o 02:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Imagine my surprise at seeing yet another Topcipher/SwisterTwister sub-stub in the academic deletion listing. But regardless of how badly T/ST wrote and sourced those articles, they at least chose clearly notable subjects. Many are still badly in need of cleanup and expansion (try searching Wikipedia for the phrase "elevated fellow" and look at the shorter articles among the results) but WP:DINC. In this case, we also have a recent thwarted attempt at turning this into an unsourced autobiography but again, that is not a valid reason for deletion (it may need to be a reason for page protection if the subject cannot be persuaded to stop). A correction for the nominator: it is not true that Mrmediumvoltage is the creator or primary author of this article. The creator was a prolific stub-creator and sockpuppeteer who was blocked long ago. Mrmediumvoltage was no doubt inspired by the sorry state of the article to try to improve it, without being familiar with our guidelines for what sort of improvement is needed or not to do it if you are the subject. We should fix up more of these articles so that other subjects are not similarly tempted. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 7 October 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WISHES[edit]

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

Short-lived, seemingly defunct educational initative, written like an advert (tagged) that also fails WP:GNG. My BEFORE failed to show that this has significance (few mentionsions in passing is about all I can see). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Europe. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on an Erasmus portal project, with the appearance of originating in a presentation, complete with a "Next steps" section. Looking at Wayback, I can see summarisation of the original 2008-11 funded project on a participant site [25]; the portal appears to have ceased sometime in 2014, with its former web address subsequently repurposed. I am not seeing evidence that it attained notability during its lifespan. AllyD (talk) 07:23, 2 October 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/Snow delete. BD2412 T 16:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Chowdhury Tithi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBLP barely any mention in independent reliable sources [26] Ratnahastin (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NPOV. Written like an WP:ADVERT. Likely use of content from non-free sources. Delete. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Created by an editor with a clear COI and possible issues with WP:CIR. Before creating this article, they initially tried to hijack Meerjady Sabrina Flora. The subject is not at all notable. The article is soo promotional that it is ridiculous and hilarious.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant attempt to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, so bad its funny. Why wasn't this a speedy? W C M_email 09:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11 just by looking at the first paragraph of the Biography section. Several of the words used there are never to be used unless quoted. I don't have to look through the entire article. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香, 23:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is unsalvageable promotion. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:18, 6 October 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 2021 Rugby World Cup squads#Japan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Masami Kawamura[edit]

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

Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON at the moment. I am unable to find WP:GNG passing sources. The most I found was news about her call-ups to the national team, such as 1, 2 and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Rugby union, and Japan. JTtheOG (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2021 Rugby World Cup squads#Japan Does look to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, although there may well be coverage in Japanese sources I'm not seeing. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD here, and saves the history. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:27, 2 October 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 Saint Seiya. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Seiya Myth Cloth[edit]

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

Unreferenced article and I'm not sure about its notability. Xexerss (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Xexerss (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saint Seiya; this page is 30,000+ bytes of unsourced content and all the sources in the interwiki articles are primary sources. I would say merge but I honestly don't see anything worth merging aside from maybe a brief mention in the other media section of the main page. Link20XX (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Saint Seiya article as suggested, I can't find anything in RS, only fan sites. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 2 October 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olle Westling[edit]

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

Can't inherit notability from his son and he hasn't accomplished anything noteworthy on his own. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED, and couldn't find SIGCOV on Westling not in the context of his in-laws.

Longhornsg (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's SIGCOV of Olle Westling it can still establish notability even if the coverage only exists due to his relation to famous persons.
The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG.
AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:21, 4 October 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gelato (software)[edit]

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

Neither the article nor my BEFORE, suggest WP:GNG of the topic. It's a thing that exists, that's not enough to have a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Not sure if merger/redirect anywhere makes sense, but I am open to suggestions per WP:ATD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like there are some good mentions I pulled up in GBooks, but not enough to warrant a GNG pass: [27][28][29][30][31][32]. SWinxy (talk) 05:49, 3 October 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. I'm sure my closure will leave some editors dissatisfied. But editor Siroxo did a lot of work after the nomination, removing inappropriate content and bringing new sources into the AFD discussion (as did StellarHalo). I twice asked for opinions on these newly located sources and didn't get any response from editors who commented earlier in the discussion. This article clearly needs some work and tending to (and a possible rename) but that can be addressed editorially. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with the most children[edit]

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

Very bad sourcing and original research. 71 [citation needed]s on what should be a straightforward objective list article. And the ranking here seems to be entirely original research/synthesis. It is almost certain that there are many men and women who meet the criteria for inclusion here that are not in the list.

This article definitely has many notable people in it, and I think such a topic is notable. But as I see it the article right now does not justify its existence.

I used to think the article was more legitimate back when it had a fraction of the people in it. But with the constant new additions of otherwise non-notable people it is becoming clear that someone can be quite high on this list without being notable in any way whatsoever.

This list behaves more like a sorted list of people with a large number of children than a list of people with **the most** children.

On both the men's and women's sides the top entries have nowhere in the sources saying they were the people with the most children, just the number of children they had. The men's side has a guiness book of world records entry for Moulay https://web.archive.org/web/20100313155522/http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2008/03/080303.aspx but w is not a record keeping organization and not a reliable source, however even if we were to take it as such, it would be the only entry in this list that is not original research.

I tried to fix this page earlier but people have kept adding more and more original research to it. I am convinced that this page should exist someday but only once we have reliable sources backing up substantial portions of the mens and womens lists. Say a top ten list for each would be sufficient. Until then I'm almost certain that there are dozens of missing women with over 20 children and likely hundreds of missing men with over 25 children, even ones in the historical record that have just not made their way onto this list. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (unsure). I am unable to identify sources either among the sources used or after looking for sources on the internet, which are independent reliable sources that discuss this list topic as a group or set, such that would indicate that this topic meets WP:NLIST. The best candidates seem to be the Guinnes World Records sources (so, not great), but do they really discuss the topic as a group or set? At the same time, it feels very strange to me that this would really not be a notable list topic. —Alalch E. 02:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename List of people with many children, (and rely on existing limits defined in article) so as not to make the likely OR claim of "most". Any other OR should be removed, I'm willing to take a pass to trim it. If the quantity is or becomes a real problem beyond those issues, we could require either multiple RS or at least one parent or child that is bluelinked. —siro χ o 06:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is legitimate, but it needs some fine tuning. I'm not too sure if an accurate list of top 10 is necessary, the list provides a platform for random users to add (despite the vandalism). Deletion is too hasty. Please help the community watching this article in adding and deleting. Cltjames (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cltjames the issue I see is that having it as a “platform to add” is original research. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 14:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is a useful list but it does need some effort. It is a page that will tend towards vandalism and poor editing but that doesn't mean it should be deleted in my opinion. BHC (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've verified some with references, and removed many unverifiable. There are a few bluelinked in the "Fathers" section that still need verification. —siro χ o 06:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Compilation of a list like this is original research, as it implies a ranking of record holders that is not supported by any reliable source. It might be acceptable if it were a list of records reported by reliable sources, but it's not the place of Wikipedia editors to perform this research themselves. pburka (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTDATABASE. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As mentioned above by others, a glance through the sourcing reveals a lot of it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sourcing. — Maile (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We should keep it but improve sources and lock the article so people dont post Bad sources Friendlyhistorian (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Samples from the list

1) (Claimed by whom?) "it is claimed that Barbara Stratzmann (c. 1448–1503) of Bönnigheim, Germany, gave birth to 53 children"

2) (source is 968 pages, not specific on which page) "Dorothea, an Italian woman who lived at the time of Ambroise Paré, reportedly delivered 20 children in 2 exceptionally large pregnancies."

3) (Source?) Alice Hookes, "According to the inscription on a gravestone in Conwy Church cemetery..."

4) (Then why list it?) Mr and Ms Kirillov, "the truth of these claims has not been established, and is highly improbable."

5) (How many?) Valentina and Feodor Vassilyev, "A Russian woman named Valentina Vassilyeva and her husband Feodor Vassilyev are alleged to hold the record for the most children a couple has produced."

6) (A medal for childbirth?) Wéber Andrásné Szirotek Teréz - "Ms Wéber (b. 30 September 1855) of Csömör, Hungary gave birth to 25 children between 1872 and 1899. She was awarded with a silver medal on 20 August 1930 on the 'Magyar anyák nemzeti ünnepe'"

7) (The Great Stork Derby) - Grace Bagnato and her husband had 23 children; nine of them were conceived in order to compete for a bequest by a Toronto eccentric, in what became known as the Great Stork Derby"

8) (Et tu Guinness?) The Guinness Book of Records - Mabel Murphy "(born 1898) of Lisnaskea, Co. Fermanagh, N. Ireland was reported to have produced 28 children (12 stillborn) in 32 years of marriage by December 1949, but this claim has not been fully substantiated"

9) (Sole source is somebody's family tree) - Griffith and Elizabeth Johnson, the claim is they had 28 children in 31 years.

It would be useful if those advocating to keep might list a few solid sources that treat this list as a group. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestion. Separate list for polygamous cultures? Do we date back to a time of slavery in America, when the women slaves had no choice? — Maile (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66 I think a list for Mormons would be useful too. As far as sperm donors I think only Bertold Paul Wiesner is notable enough to include in something like this. For many of the men there all this is really doing is feeding their egos unencyclopedically.

Also even during this discussion when people were trimming it down @PWHG just added another nobody to the list. I'm really not convinced we can have any encyclopedic list of this form unless we can primarily cite reliable sources on the topic itself. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 00:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuelle I'm not sure this is workable as is, since itis a natural human thing to want to keep adding with each newly uncovered situation. And a "for instance" would be American farm/ranch wives of the 19th century. It was expected that these wives would have 8, 10, 12 children. Perhaps there is a better solution for this, but I'm at a loss as to what that is. — Maile (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66 well I think a rather simple solution that might fix the problem is to substantially up the requirement for inclusion in the list. But I think generally people are more notable within their social contexts as having a lot of children than their absolute number.

List of prolific sperm and egg donors could be one

List of prolific Mormon polygamists - List of Latter Day Saint practitioners of plural marriage

etc Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Rhododendrites and Alalch E.: here are some sources for WP:NLIST [33][34][35][36][37] —siro χ o 08:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. No consensus exists right now. It would be helpful if editors evaluated sources recently brought into the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: RS tend to discuss people with lot of kids on a case-by-case basis rather than as a group but here are the some "ok" to "solid" sources that do: 1, 2, 3. Now, the people discussed in the first two don't appear on this list but these are to show that RS discuss people with a lot of children as a topic group per WP:NLIST. Also, sourcing problems within articles are not reasons to delete and people with much more children than average are hardly indiscriminate. Many inclusion criteria that are result of user consensus for standalone list articles have always been based somewhat on original research. Maybe, we could move this to "List of people with many children" --StellarHalo (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A second relist after seeing No consensus right now. An evaluation of newly found sources would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I think there is some merit to an article like this, however my main issue is that it is almost impossible to verify a lot of the claims made in the article without WP:OR. As has already been mentioned, a lot of the sourcing does not meet verifiability guidelines. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to List of people claimed to have had the largest number of children. The claims may be unverifiable but it can be verified that they are, indeed, claims. Also, make the cutoffs higher — at least 25 for women and 50 for men. BD2412 T 04:35, 6 October 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. Star Mississippi 13:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyriaki Vasiliou[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Cyprus women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least three caps for the Cyprus women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found transaction news like 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cyprus. JTtheOG (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 13:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep per sources added which show notability. Giant Snowman 17:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since subject, despite a dearth of Εnglish-language sources about her online, is present enough in local-lingo media, e.g. here, here, etc, to pass the criterion of notability. Moreover, she plays in Cyprus' top division and has been capped for the national team, achieving fooballers' notability. -The Gnome (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still divided between Keep and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: More sources added to the article. Its subject may not be too known in the Anglosphere but it is in her native lingo's media. -The Gnome (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Per above. Celalru ignificant figur ein Cypriot womens football with ongong career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. The serresmegasport.gr source is probably sigcov but the other sources are unreliable. Omonoianews.com is a Omonoia Nicosia fansite with one sentence on her that isn't from a press release. epilogesnews.gr is sourced to a Facebook account. Gnomi is a namedrop, acadimies.gr is a Q+A interview with one independent sentence and ginekio.com cites the same Facebook page as epilogesnews.gr. Dougal18 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Dougal18. I also can't find any details on editorial policy for Serres Megasport -- the site seems to be hosted by WordPress, and the About Us section just says "Html code here! Replace this with any non-empty text and that's it."

JoelleJay (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is something wrong with the recent couple of Delete suggestions. Dougal18 dismisses some Omonoianews.com source as a "fansite" but there is no such source among the citations. The Gnomi source, disparaged by the same contributor as a "name-drop", was deployed to support the fact that our subject has been the recipient of the 2015 Best Young Footballer of the Year. As to Facebook, I have no idea what that is about, since there is no link to it anywhere in the text. JoelleJay claimed that the Serres MegaSport website is hosted on WordPress, but, again, one is left dumbfounded: Here is the station's home page. No web host in sight. Are my colleagues perhaps looking up some old, cached version? Lastly, Ginekio is the website for women's football in Cyprus, the name itself, if I still remember my Greek, meaning "by women", "of women."

The sources in the article may not be world-wide famous media, as I already pointed out above. But the subject evidently is well known in her native land, and even more so after taking a public stand against what she perceives as gender bias in the game. -The Gnome (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You linked the omonoianews site, which is purely a republished press release

.

Gnomi Online is a namedrop in an announcement listing award recipients: plainly a trivial mention, primary, non-independent, and fails YOUNGATH as the award is for juniors

.

Serresmegasport.gr is made with WordPress. You can see the logo used as the tab icon on Chrome, the admin login for the site is through WP, if you look at the source code everything is being loaded from wp-content folders, and the licensing is with WP. But the more pressing issue is the lack of published editorial policy on this site. It's also clearly not a radio station, despite being inexplicably wikilinked to a list of Greek radio stations...

The Epiloges News piece is sourced directly to this facebook group, which is where the interview was originally posted. That is not RS

. The Ginekio piece is just a reprint of Epiloges. JoelleJay (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no link to the OmonoiaNews website in the article. And the link you just posted brings up a 404 error warning. What kind of rabbit hole are we been dragged into?
Vasiliou was recognized as the Best Young Footballer of the Year 2015. This is not a trivial award. The award is significant. She was 18 years old when she received so WP:YOUNGATH, which is about "high school and pre-high school athletes" and which you invoked, is irrelevant. To establish that she received the award the Gnomi site is cited and it contains, yes, a single reference to Vasiliou since it's a list of the 2015 awards. The citation is appropriate; it's not a report or an article that simply mentions our subject but a list when a list is needed. Think any awards list.

P.S. Do you have any kind of evidence that Gnomi is "non-independent" as a source? This would assuredly be interesting in more ways than one.

There is no citation from Epiloges in the article. The interview published by the Facebook page to which you linked does not appear in the article. There are two citations from Ginekio; one presents the player's data and confirms her National Team participation, and the other is an interview in which she brings up, again, the issue of gender discrimination,as she sees it. Ginekii is an independent, third-party medium focused on women's football.
Serres MegaSport is a significant source of news on Serres sport life. And they're a radio station alright; if you have enough reach in your equipment, you can tune in at the 91.7 Greek frequency and hear for yourself. A "published editorial policy" does not by itself guarantee possession of the attributes of a WP:RS, while the absence of one is not evidence of the contrary. You must be thinking of Wikipedia's warning on sponsored content. And as to whether their website has been constructed from this or that toolbox, we should care not one whit.

-The Gnome (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I think he is referring to this edit where you linked omonoianews. I'm not getting a 404 code for the omonoianews link either, though I'm not entirely sure that's the one you are referencing. JTtheOG (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Maybe think about this one a bit more.
2. Awards lists like this are never significant coverage. The listing at Gnomi simply reproduces the announcement by KOP and is therefore not independent or secondary. "Best Junior Footballer" is not a significant award, not that that would be relevant in any way in determining notability (unless you were alleging this junior football award somehow meets ANYBIO, which would be absurd considering no other sports award is considered significant enough to meet ANYBIO).
3. Think this one through too. The content in interviews is by definition primary and non-independent, it does not matter where it is published. NOR explicitly lists interviews as an example of a primary source.
4. You were the one making a big deal about my characterizing SMS as a WordPress site. My emphasis was on the lack of details on editorial policy, which is kind of a deal-breaker for BLPs where we require the highest-quality sourcing. JoelleJay (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe enough has been presented in this AfD, at least by me, so I'm taking my leave.

- The Gnome (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Who is this "he" in the conversation?

Sorry, that was my comment. "He" referred to JoelleJay. JTtheOG (talk) 16:30, 6 October 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 draft. There is no clear consensus for any one outcome, but there is a very clear consensus that this should not currently exist in mainspace, and an somewhat closer consensus that this should not be entirely deleted. Deleting entirely in favor of the draft is problematic, as there is content in the draft that was copied from the mainspace article, raising attribution concerns. There is no reason to expect that further relisting will result in a different outcome. BD2412 T 16:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2024[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 01:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the page should be deleted. There is a decent amount of sources already, and given that this page was created less than 10 hours ago, we should give it time. I understand your point of view as well and please do the same for mine. Thank you! C.b.w85 (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C.b.w85 - AFD wording above does not seem to be about how much you have edited the article to date. I think the conflict is about this being a future date. There are also such debates about future elections, etc. My "Keep" comments are below.— Maile (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are already a lot of articles on Category:2024 beauty pageants and Category:2024, Category:2024 in France, Category:2024 in the United States, and on and on it goes. Maybe Wikipedia has contradicting guidelines on things like this, but I don't see how we can delete this one entrant, if all those other 2024 events are being created now. — Maile (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete: Miss Universe 2023 hasn't even happened yet. Just a bit WP:TOOSOON to have a mainspace article for this topic. WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST isn't a good keep rationale. User:Let'srun 02:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - TOOSOON is an essay, not a guideline. I do not believe in any event, that it is too soon for an event as famous as this. I personally find this nomination a little picky. I know the following is not really a solid argument but here goes: we have more important things to be deleting than something like this. I think on balance, I would not yet have created this article. However, now it is here, there is no need to delete as the event will without question be notable and it's not long before the 2023 contest is over and the next commences. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat agree, but I do think that Draftify is the best option, at least until the 2023 event is over. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 02:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Beauty pageants. Skynxnex (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: WP:TOOSOON to have an article on this. I do believe it'd be best if this article was draftified until Miss Universe 2023 is over. FatCat96 (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Article has potential but it's too soon. Not enough sources are shown that provide sigcov of the 2024 event specifically, and having one contestant listed isn't helpful to potential readers. StartOkayStop (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Article is less then a day old but given the event hasnt happened yet I would say move to the draft space and have the template Template:Promising draft given. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The majority of editors are arguing for Draftification but there are editors here insisting on Keep so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as TOOSOON BrigadierG (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify should be fine, although maybe it should actually be deleted. Very similar case to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miss_Earth_2024. - Indefensible (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Miss Universe is not the events of a single evening. It is also the process of choosing and selecting the national nominees in separate national pageants well before the Miss Universe pageant. On that basis, I don't think that WP:TOOSOON applies. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and oppose deletion, per nomination. But given the amount of significant coverage in previous entries (Take Miss Universe 2023 for example), it kind-of passes WP:GNG imo. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON Until the event actually takes place. GraziePrego (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until further notice. It will be notable when it happens. But that's not even on a determined date yet. Unlike the Super Bowl whose dates are known years ahead of time. Trillfendi (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I closed this AFD discussion as Draftify and found that there is already a draft at Draft:Miss Universe 2024 that might be in better condition than this article. Should it be deleted in favor of this one? Should they be Merged? Or should this article be deleted and the current draft article kept? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Delete this one and keep the current draft article as the two pages essentially overlap. ––– GMH MELBOURNE 05:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, delete this one and leave the other to eventually become the proper article. GraziePrego (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious instance of WP:TOOSOON. TH1980 (talk) 01:22, 8 October 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 Almohad campaign against Portugal (1190–1191). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Silves (1191)[edit]

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

This article adds nothing that its parent (Almohad campaign against Portugal (1190–1191)) doesn't already have. It is all background, OR or fluff. This is a failed BLAR situation. A redirect to the parent is reasonable. Srnec (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Srnec (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Morocco, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Almohads made a Campaign against the kingdom of Portugal and in this campaign there are battles and sieges it's quite normal. I do not see why the page should be deleted knowing that it provides more detail on its sieges and battles. Mrpf plus (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not provide more detail. That's why. It's a little puff piece. Maybe an article could be written, but this isn't it. The redirect should be restored until somebody writes an article that contains more detail than in the parent article. Srnec (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the article only needs more detail? Mrpf plus (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you should first verify the sources before deleting a page. Seniorjackfr (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't meet WP:GNG. All the sources that are cited are nothing but mentions in passing of the capture of Silves (that's it). Everything else in the article is WP:OR and fluff. M.Bitton (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Almohad campaign against Portugal (1190–1191). MarioGom (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a bundled nomination and we need to hear opinions about both articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Almohad campaign against Portugal (1190–1191). Not every military engagement is notabile for a standalone article and this information will be better off in the target due to context with a redirect. Lacks WP:SIGCOV addressing the subjects (both articles) directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 08:32, 8 October 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 Surman, Libya albeit weakly so, target wise. Should the consensus on target change, that can be handled editorially and via RfD. It doesn't require a further relist at this stage Star Mississippi 00:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rafik Sorman Stadium[edit]

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

After searching, unable to find sources to establish notability. Several online websites with passing mention, but no indepth coverage about this stadium. Article was created on 29 June 2006 JoeNMLC (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Libya. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rafik Sorman - not currently shown to be independently notable, but certainly a possible search term. Giant Snowman 13:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect Above is a bad redirect target, it's used for other sports and events should be merged and redirected too Surman, Libya. The stadium is owned by local government. Govvy (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different Merge/Redirect targets being proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Govvy. Lacks enough coverage and content to justify a stand alone article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is now the last one remaining in Category:Articles lacking sources from August 2007; the sooner consensus is reached, the better. — Mugtheboss (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's still not clear to me where to Redirect/Merge this article to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect: Surman, Libya is the best target. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Surman, Libya (1st choice) or Rafik Sorman (distant second), whichever target has consensus; there is no sourced content to merge and unsourced content should not be added to articles, if a source can be found no problem with a merge. BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the sujbect directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 08:20, 8 October 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Battles[edit]

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

While the Technology Tell review is substantial and TT is a reliable source, the only other source I could find was an announcement piece from Hardcore Gamer. VNs Now (was used as a source in the article) is unreliable (contributor referred to by username and not real name, their "About Us" page on the current version of their site still has "insert email here" in it!). QuietCicada (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to have the threshold of WP:SIGCOV required to pass WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:14, 2 October 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!} 23:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of the 110th United States Congress who have served in the United States military[edit]

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

Extraneous cross-categorization list, no sources covering the topic as a whole to establish notability. Members of every Congress have a variety of backgrounds but it's unclear why members of this Congress with this prior experience need a list (the more significant experience that immediately preceded election is at Members of the 110th United States Congress). Deprod referenced Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_29#Category:Members_of_the_110th_United_States_Congress_who_have_served_in_the_United_States_Military, which occurred shortly after these members were elected. Reywas92^Talk 00:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Reywas92^Talk 00:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTDB this is a one-of-a-kind list of the 110th Congress (2007-2009). It was created by an unapproved short-lived DomBot that only operated for 6 months. — Maile (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; this isn't the sort of list that's useful to keep around. Agree that relevant background including military service belongs at Members of the 110th United States Congress. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the nom rationale. WP:INDISCRIMINATE certainly applies here User:Let'srun 21:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDB, also WP:FORK, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Conyo14 (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above and fails WP:NLIST - where is the specific notability of this class? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. I'd probably pick WP:CROSSCAT as the strongest, but most of the rest of WP:NLIST works, too. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The information presented in this article would be better managed with categories. An editor or administrator should create an umbrella category of people who have served in the United States Military. As far as I can tell that category doesn't exist.--Kerbyki (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous categories along those lines: Category:American military personnel by century — Maile (talk) 18:17, 8 October 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.

[Visit_Sandoy-1] "Skarvanes". Visit Sandoy. Retrieved 3 October 2023.

[1]