Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 15 February 17 >

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. ✗plicit 00:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Szabo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, lacks independent sigcov to establish notability. Jdcooper (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Szabo happy singing her own tune". The Hamilton Spectator. 2010-04-01. p. 41. Retrieved 2024-02-10.
  • "Dundas singer Maggie Szabo making her mark in L.A." The Hamilton Spectator. 2016-03-26. p. 41. Retrieved 2024-02-10.
  • "34 Canadian Songwriters Honoured in US-Based 2014 International Songwriting Competition". The Canadian Music Educator. Vol. 56, no. 4. ProQuest 1710994371. It notes: A soulful Canadian singer who has won over audiences worldwide, with 13 million views on YouTube, Maggie Szabo honed her craft at a young age in her hometown of Dundas. Following her high school graduation, she moved to Nashville to continue the quest to improve her writing and performing. Her original sound, infused with soulful pop melodies, secured Maggie a record deal with Linus Entertainment in Ontario. Her debut pop album Now Hear Me Out was released in November, 2012. Maggie was named Bell Media's Emerging chosen by famed blogger Perez Hilton as his "Can YOU Sing?" contest winner. He hailed Maggie as a superstar on the rise. She also is the winner of the 2014 Toronto Independent Music Award in the Best Pop category.
  • Crowley, Patrick (2017-09-19). "Maggie Szabo Premieres 'Don't Give Up' Music Video As a Love Letter To Trans Youth". Billboard. Retrieved 2024-02-10.
  • Tagat, Anurag (2020-10-16). "Premiere: Canadian Pop Artist Maggie Szabo Sings About Taking Chances in Love for 'Worth The Weight'". Rolling Stone India. Retrieved 2024-02-10.
Jfire (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: New sources identified above seem to satisfy GNG Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And Billboard [4] Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: undoubtedly, especially the Billboard source, which is most reliable for musician pages. Password (talk)(contribs) 01:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12). As an ATD and also because there is clearly one editor (and maybe an entire WikiProject) that wants to work on improving. If there is an objection to having individual articles on each episode of a TV series, that is a larger discussion that would need to take place and would affect many articles we have on dozens of popular TV programs. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This bundled nomination was not set up according to the instructions at WP:AFD so I will have to handle each article individually. Give me a little time. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One-Queen Show[edit]

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

Individual episodes of reality competition shows are generally not notable. RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12) (#Episodes) has summaries and key content of each episode of the season – with plenty of space to expand as well. While media websites may recap episodes, per WP:NOPAGE there is no need for individual articles for every one, especially not bulk-produced with just worthless single sentences.

Also listing

  • Strong keep per page creator. As nominator has said, almost all episodes are reviewed by multiple media outlets, and Wikipedia has examples of what individual episodes of Drag Race can look like once fleshed out: "Queens Behind Bars", "Trump: The Rusical", "Moulin Ru: The Rusical", etc. As for this nomination, it can be difficult to demonstrate notability for nine topics at once. So, I'll focus on "Choices 2020":
Sources for "Choices 2020" (some of which have been added to the entry)
I could keep going... Seems clear to me there's plenty to say and no doubt of notability. I should also note, WikiProject Drag Race is quite active and I believe more time should be given for editors to collaborate on these entries. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of course, episode recaps for television shows exist. And yet, their coverage is WP:ROTM. It makes for a good distinction of how encyclopedias are WP:NOTNEWS. Per NOPAGE, there's plenty to say about the season of television, but less about each episode. I imagine some episodes, like the fleshed out examples provided, are the exceptions to the rule where there is enough that's worth documenting, like how some television shows have articles for some of their episodes but not others (Stranger Things (season 4) is the first example to come to my mind.) – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is absolutely nothing notable about these television episodes. Pre-existing episode summaries in the relevant season is more than enough. Thismess (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Incubate Other editors are correct in that much of the coverage of the episodes are WP:ROTM and in their current state fail WP:NOPAGE, especially on if they add context to the season episode lists. However the fleshed out examples above do add more, with that in mind they could be incubated instead of deleted to allow them to be fleshed out. Shaws username (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why do these exist? What is the use of articles whose only content is an infobox listing next to nothing and one sentence that says ""x" is an episode of Ruaul's Drag Race" with one or two sources that merely prove the topic exists after? @CAPTAIN RAJU: I think this discussion should be expanded to include all the articles that have been recently created for Drag Race episodes, like Disco-mentary and Girl Groups (RuPaul's Drag Race) and however many other articles are listed at List of RuPaul's Drag Race episodes. Ss112 07:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by page creator: Can we just restore these pages as redirects for now? The redirects serve a purpose, so outright deletion is not necessary. There seems to be a dislike for these stubs, even though I am quite certain at least some are notable and could be expanded ("Choices 2020", for example). I'd roll up my sleeves to expand them now but I am currently traveling. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes of course...that's what I did before you reverted me with no changes... Don't make one-sentence junk that doesn't inform readers. Collaborate in draft space if you need to. But even what you added to that article is duplicative to or can easily be added to the main article, and individual episode articles are generally not necessary. Reywas92Talk 02:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't actually think the pages should be redirected, I'm just proposing this for now because I don't have time to expand the entries immediately. I'll work on them at a later date, hence my request for restoring redirects instead of outright deletion. Not interested in expanding or defending nine entries while traveling. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have time to expand the entries immediately Then don't create them like this! Reywas92Talk 14:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't traveling when I created them. I understand you dislike stubs, but stubs for notable topics aren't problematic. I don't need you attempting to merge and delete every stub I create. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Another Believer's request. These stubs were created in good faith and he should have the chance to expand them. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect this one, for now, with the possibility of re-creating later, or keeping some that are particularly well-sourced. I would not get angry at a procedural keep. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I, too, would appreciate a procedural keep. At least some of these are very clearly notable, but discussing and defending nine entries at once is obnoxious. I would ask nominator to express notability concerns on specific talk pages in the future. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've expressed concerns about one-sentence "articles" how many times??? "Potentially notable topic" != "Must have a standalone article, no matter how uninformative or duplicative it is". How about a procedural ban on creating pages that state only existence? What's obnoxious is that these tell readers nothing. Reywas92Talk 19:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, stubs for notable topics are allowed. I've asked you before (as have others), please leave me alone and stop targeting me and my work. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And just because they may be "allowed" doesn't mean we have to have them like this! That's the whole point of WP:NOPAGE! I (and others) don't think that individual episodes are notable, or, even if (routine) sources are available, that they still don't need standalone, duplicative articles with no actual content. And since you're requesting expression of notability concerns, I hereby express concerns about the rest of the one-liners in Category:RuPaul's Drag Race episodes. Reywas92Talk 20:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, LEAVE ME ALONE. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as while Redirection has been proposed as an alternative to Deletion. Would the target article be the Season 12 article? I don't see grounds for a Procedural Keep unless there is opposition to a bundled nomination but that's not what I'm seeing here and I don't think the number of articles included in this nomination is excessive.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz While I don't think redirecting is necessary, the Season 12 entry would be the target until I or others expand these stubs further. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Season 12 would be my preference. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PrinceofPunjabTALK 10:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't fair to just add on a bunch of entries which have not been included in the nomination. Also, the targets would be different and some of these episodes have been nominated for Emmys. These are more valid stubs needing expansion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that some of them have been nominated for Emmys. However, it's important to note that they are nominated in categories that are relatively minor and people who won/nominated for the award are not even mentioned on the article itself. PrinceofPunjabTALK 16:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just suggesting a more targeted approach be taken here. There's an assumption that none of these stubs are valid and they've been given very little time to exist in the main space. I don't think the rush to delete all of these pages (which at minimum serve a purpose as redirects) is necessary. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You make a valid point. Rushing to delete all these pages, especially when some may serve as useful redirects, might not be necessary. A more targeted approach might be focusing on creating articles for premieres, Rusicals episodes, and those with Emmy nominations. This way, we can ensure that our efforts are directed towards content that holds significant relevance and value within the context of the show. PrinceofPunjabTALK 19:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit too late in the process to add a new WP:BUNDLE ("debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate"), putting them in their own AfD (broken up by season) would make more sense for considering them. Shaws username . talk . 14:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not bundling the entries at the start; this is only my second time engaging in this process, and I'm still learning the ropes. I will create a separate a Afd for them, broken up by season. PrinceofPunjabTALK 16:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok, sorry if I sounded a bit brusque, everyone's got to start somewhere and it's great that you're getting involved! Shaws username . talk . 17:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think starting another AFD is necessary yet if they can be redirected like those in this one. Reywas92Talk 18:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Stewart[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to have the coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD of merge/redirect to Kanab, Utah, but could unbalance that article. Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Founder of Kanab is sufficient to justify an article. The article could certainly use improvement - right now, the content leans more toward name-dropping other notables than elaborating Stewart's own notability - but that's not a reason to delete.--Michael Snow (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is devoid of sources so I did a bit of digging. I found one book mention that could source the statement that he "settled Kanab" and told the story of his wife's death (in more detail than the bit about him). Another brief mention. The name "Levi Stewart" turns out to be not unusual so it takes some effort to sort through them. In the end, however, I think it would take a deep dive to find enough sources to keep this article. It may be possible to get one sentence into the Kanab article (using the first link I gave) saying that Levi Stewart is credited with founding the town. Lamona (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Lamona. Founding a smaller town is not enough to establish notability unless there is serious referencing behind it. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 00:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TBL-37[edit]

TBL-37 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has some coverage but doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have an obvious WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Stuttering therapy. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McGuire Programme[edit]

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

not notable outside of its community. page was created and is large maintained by those who have had close involvement}} S!mba009 (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tango[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability of this website under GNG or SNG. Zero references except for their own website. And I could not find any. North8000 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catastrophic illness[edit]

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

This page fails to meet notability criteria. Its entire content can be covered by the notable topic Disease and others within medicine. This is not a formal medical term, either.

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is also an insurance term. Some insurance companies sell catastrophic illness policies, recognizing the specific financial needs of people who are struck with such an illness. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have fixed portions of this nomination that made it look like we were somehow nominating "PageName". No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important technical term. - Altenmann >talk 22:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the term hasn't lost its notability since the previous, unanimous Keep, AfD. Owen× ☎ 00:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article just needs expanding. It looks like it especially needs work from someone with expertise in health insurance. Deleting it would quite counterproductive. Vontheri (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: nominated again? a notable topic requiring some expansion... Password (talk)(contribs) 01:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This topic would be hard to find and probably WP:UNDUE in Disease, since it isn't relevant for disease itself so much as insurance and social services purposes. "Not a formal medical term" isn't a reason for deletion, but also, the NIH defines it: [5]. -- asilvering (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global World Series[edit]

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

Previously deleted article was recreated, speedy deletion declined. Reasons for deleting are the same as they were back then.. This event never happened and all sources are minor speculative blurbs from one press conference. It's been 10 years.. nothing has changed. Spanneraol (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted because to have a Wikipedia article about the Global World Series is important for several reasons:

1. Transparency and Accessibility: Wikipedia articles provide transparent and accessible information to a wide audience. By documenting the Global World Series, the article ensures that details about the proposed tournament, its origins, and its eventual outcome are available to anyone with internet access.

2. Preservation of Knowledge: Wikipedia articles contribute to the preservation of knowledge by capturing key events and developments for future generations. The Global World Series article helps ensure that the story of this proposed tournament is not forgotten, providing insights into the aspirations, challenges, and decisions that shaped its trajectory.

3. Promotion of Awareness and Discussion: By documenting the Global World Series, the Wikipedia article promotes awareness and discussion about international baseball competitions and the efforts to expand the sport's global reach. It encourages dialogue among fans, players, administrators, and stakeholders about the potential benefits and challenges of such tournaments.

Overall, having a Wikipedia article about the Global World Series enriches the collective understanding of baseball history and its global evolution, fostering greater appreciation and engagement with the sport across diverse audiences.

--Rrp13121989 01:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  • I would bet my entire bank account this comment is a copy / paste from ChatGPT. I understand you may have put a lot of work into the article and feel passionately about the topic, but do you have any policy based rationale for keeping the article? As written, the article fails WP:GNG and violates WP:NOTNEWS. - Skipple ☎ 05:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far I haven't heard any counterarguments as to why it should be deleted. There are many article in Wikipedia about porposed tournaments or ideas. Rrp13121989 (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of arguments for deletion above yours. The article doesnt have any sources that provide evidence of lasting notability. Spanneraol (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skipple, I second this. Password (talk)(contribs) 01:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: sure there's some sourcing, but it was just all talk and not WP:SUSTAINED. Password (talk)(contribs) 01:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin note - I declined the speedy deletion because this article is not even remotely similar to the one that was deleted a decade ago. This is a new article on the same topic, not a recreation. I don't see how that would sway the discussion at this point, but I think it's important to have that context. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gemini (rapper)[edit]

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

Unable to find coverage which sufficiently fulfills GNG, both inside and outside the article InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Created by seemingly one purpose stale account, about a non-notable rapper with inadequate coverage. The listed sources are mostly product pages detailing their records. Cursory google search didn't provide with any in-depth RS coverage. Surprised how it lasted for 16 years. X (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete together with numerous albums - Altenmann >talk 22:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The rapper also had three album articles and one more for a song, which were all dependent on just a single retail source each, and for each I could find no reliable reviews or other sources via Internet searches. Those articles should have never fallen through the cracks in the first place, so I have redirected them all to the rapper's article as standard procedure for non-notable albums/songs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Note that this guy has released records under various names, probably because his original zodiac name was already taken. Under the name "Big Geminii" (note the extra "i") he has a basic AllMusic bio ([6]), but it doesn't provide very much detail beyond a list of releases. Otherwise I can find nothing beyond the usual retail and streaming sites. Not enough on which to build an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information Professionals Association[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. There is absolutely zero coverage or even mention of them in the references except by themselves. Of the references, 3 are their own website, one is their linked in page and the remaining reference does not cover or even mention them. In a search I could not find any independent sources. Tagged for wp:notability by others since November. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Priest's Passion[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this was notable. Although it could redirect to Matthew Dewey, I think the title might be too ambiguous. Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Celje#Districts and local communities. Liz Read! Talk! 19:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karel Destovnik Kajuh (district)[edit]

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

I could only find coverage about the person that this district is named after; I cannot even find mentions about this place. As a result, it doesn't meet general notability guidelines. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 17:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please Be Happy[edit]

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

I was unable to find substantial reviews from reliable sources besides RPGFan. Wraithkal is a blog written by a single pseudonymous person. While Nook Gaming has an editorial policy and claims to have received game previews from SEGA and NIS America, they accept suggestions to review games from random developers and readers and thus should probably not count towards notability. Geek to Geek Media's authors have very light credentials such as B.J. Keeton writing for ScreenRant. Popzara does not list credentials for its authors. QuietCicada chirp 17:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability can be brought up to par.
Tech Gaming has a review if it's felt they're notable enough. I can't see if they've been discussed before. They are a MetaCritic site though which does show some level of notability at least. Outside of that, they've had significant interviews with industry staff, access to notable review copies and were linked on the PlayStation blog. This is probably going to be the most notable of them, but I am surprised to find there aren't many links to them from other websites that I can find even in this area where websites may not link to each other as they're competitors. There's also that Robert Allen seems to be the writer of 3884 of their articles, while Gonçalo Tordo has the second most at 60.
NookGaming I would generally consider a reliable source considering the medium/that they specialise in the area as it's on OpenCritic, linked on sources like Arstechnica and Engadget, early access to games (several previews and reviews dated prior to launch), have disclaimers for review copies of notable titles, a few more niche industry interviews, etc, but perhaps not one that would significantly count toward notability. I'd not hold their blurb about getting in contact regarding reviews against them though. Destructoid and TwinInfinite both provide addresses for people to contact them about review copies.
Geek to Geek Media is on OpenCritic (if only somewhat recently) which lends them some support as well as their owner writing for ScreenRant.com, but the review copies they're provided don't seem to be notable and their editorial policy is minimal. Pretty much all of the links to them are from podcast websites. I'd find it difficult to suggest them as notable or reliable.
Wraithkal and Popzara I can think can be dismissed for the reasons above.
Unfortunately, this is an issue with a lot of visual novel articles since very few are covered in Western media outside of niche sites. Japanese sources can sometimes be found but as a Western game it wouldn't be the case here.
Visual Novels fall under the Anime Project which does tend to be somewhat more lenient toward sources due to the niche nature of the medium, but notability will be difficult to prove for this title I believe. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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! 19:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Donde Stars[edit]

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

They don't appear to quite meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG, although they have some coverage, which is good for an unsigned band, then on a non-notable label. No obvious WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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! 19:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Cohen[edit]

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

Horribly written with little factual updating in recent years. Not much on the page to indicate this is a notable person JMWt (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 17:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conference on Semantics in Healthcare and Life Sciences[edit]

Conference on Semantics in Healthcare and Life Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't appear to meet WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable, not covered in RS. Cinadon36 16:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 15:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Mammadov (state official)[edit]

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

Fails GNG, due to not having significant coverage in reliable sources. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 15:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noel McNamara[edit]

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

Most of the coverage from google news is an Irish coach of the same name or referring to McNamara's son who went to trial. I don't consider getting the Medal of the Order of Australia means inherent notability, as 605 of these are given out every year. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article is only supported by primary sources. I removed another source that was purely promotional. My searches found that his son is more notable than he is for a WP:BLP1E incident. TarnishedPathtalk 13:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. A lot of work has gone into this article since it was nominated for an AFD and it looks like the current consensus is to Keep it. Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blanchefleur[edit]

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

PROD removed. This name fails WP:NNAME, WP:GNG due to lack of reliable sources and WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NOTDICT. All of the people listed are fictional characters, none of which seem notable enough to warrant their own articles. It also seems like this article was created in an apparent act of vandalism, then converted to an article about an unnotable fictional character, then converted to roughly what it is now, rather than just deleted in the first place. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unreferenced violation of WP:IPC and possibly WP:OR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, unreferenced is one thing, but there's others. First of all, User:Cuchullain had a hand in this, and that's a good sign. Second, "popular culture"--sure, romance was a popular genre, but that shouldn't be used as a putdown. The Aeneid was popular too, and the bible was, or "what does Ingeld have to do with Christ" wouldn't have been a very good argument. (It's not, but for a different reason.) Third, all the ones listed are featured in highly notable texts/cycles/etc., and they are not unimportant characters. Keep, obviously. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies Hmmm, take a look at my reply above. Right now I feel this is a badly messed up name page in need of WP:TNT. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Piotrus, I did. It is very disappointing. A bad compilation--well. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          If you find the article disappointign and a bad compilation, why are you voting keep? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think they may have been referring to your response, not the article. Anyway, I completely understand Piotrus' concerns, but it doubles as a symbol as Drmies explains, and I believe there may be enough coverage and study of the name in that aspect to keep the article. It is clearly the subject of several nontrivial essays. I do believe that the 'Blanchefleur in the Grail' section falls into the purview of Potrius' concerns, though I do not advocate for its removal. I believe I may gravitate slightly more towards Drmies' point of view, but I will let the community decide the fate of the article. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Drmies. Even if it is not kept, at the very least it could be converted into a DAB page, but Drmies's work shows that that should not be necessary. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's clearly a name page, so I don't think it would be right to turn it into a DAB, but Drmies' sources may merit notability anyway. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure what it is, actually. I guess it's a page on a name with a bunch of links to their occurrences. I have secondary sourcing (OK, one tertiary one) for all but one of em now; it's a work in progress. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure if you're familiar with name pages or not, but that second sentence pretty adequately describes them. There generally must be at least at least two Wikipedia articles about people with the name for a name to be notable, but not necessarily if there is adequate sourcing. I'd say the sources you have added do seem to have merit, but I guess my primary concern would be that it reads more like a study on the characters rather than on the name itself. I'm feeling fairly neutral towards deletion now, though. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • AllTheUsernamesAreInUse, the thing is that esp. in medieval literature a name is often also a concept. In general, names denote a variety of things, and not every Gawain is the same Gawain. Nor is Mordred always King Arthur's son; sometimes he's his nephew. And particularly with side characters, especially women, they are sometimes also emblems, allegorical or other representations of certain values and ideas, and that's what we have here. That's why I included what you might call character studies: the concept of Blanchefleur (this is how I would write it up for publication) is generally that of a standard beautiful woman in romance--sometimes a "seductress", sometimes an emblem of purity. Readers of romance will sense that these two meanings are not unlike the two gardens we see in medieval literature--the garden of love and the garden of Eden (see Locus amoenus). That's just how it works in this literature, which does things differently from how moderns do it. A name can also be an idea, and conflicting ideas can exist together in ways that we wouldn't think of. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well you clearly know a lot more than me on this topic, so I'll take your word for it, but I'd also like to see you address the comment made by Piotrus above, as that is a better explication of my line of thought. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, User:AllTheUsernamesAreInUse, I don't know, but medieval literature, that's what I used to do for a living. I'm not going to respond to that because, and I'm a bit surprised that this comes from him, it's a loaded question. Plus I don't really have the time or the inclination to explain, at length, that there is a huge difference between the name/concept/idea "Blanchefleur" and the name "Piotr". It's indicative of a fetishization of names in the same way that people fetishize nationality--one draws up rules based on modern ideas and then applies them retroactively. A much more exciting read, more exciting than my rambling about names, is this classic about nations and nationhood. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has substantive content and nearly a dozen references now. In addition, I've found dozens more lengthy descriptions and explications in books about medieval literature. Softlavender (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is plenty of content on the name and its related concept to justify the existence of an article, and sourcing is abundant. LadyofShalott 13:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Drmies has already explained everything I thought I'd have to when I saw this AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SNOW keep‎. Fuzheado | Talk 19:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Alexei Navalny[edit]

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

Unneccessary WP:CFORK of Alexei Navalny, with the sole purpose of being a Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles with all the problems listed on that essay. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. Information is still coming out. Suggest giving it a week tops. Borgenland (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it's not like we're gonna learn any details anyway besides the dry press statement and then an official declaration of death a couple of weeks down the line. If or when we learn the truth (and thus more detials) decades from now, we could recreate the article then Kasperquickly (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: There's a decent chance that there will be an article about this event, but I think that this is a clear-cut case of WP:TOOSOON. We don't know what the precise implications of his likely murder will be. BOTTO (T•C) 14:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no ordinary death would have domestic and international protests as a consequence; there's also quite a lot of coverage of his death, and there can only be more once there is an investigation into his death. If it turns out in a week that everyone has moved on and there's nothing more than reactions, then sure, delete it then. Jaguarnik (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's too early to determine if this will be notable enough for a full-fledged article. Best to wait a few days as this will certainly have media coverage. AverageLogic (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For many Russians, this is a political event of historic proportions. Although we cannot know the exact details yet, it will clearly be remembered and discussed. HFoxii (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if in a month nothing more happened concerning this death. Then we might have a discussion, at this moment this is a highly notable death and a needed article. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per above. We should at least wait until the dust settles before such a discussion is made. TheBritinator (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BabbaQ SchoolChromebookUser (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others, this is a very significant event that has attracted tons of media coverage already, it shouldn't be deleted yet - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 15:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep don't be ridiculous. Jmj713 (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more news and information will coming out soon Bakhos2010 (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This will be going on for a long time as the international news investigations unfold. — Maile (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, probably an important political murder. Wikisaurus (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • P. S. In ruwiki there is quite a long and detailed description of how his health was undermined by Russian prison authorities. Wikisaurus (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Too soon to make such article, it is Wikinews. With evidence of intentional death and the circumstances of the investigation there should be such an article, but right now there is no information or sources to confirm or deny anything. evs 💬 15:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is already, just hours after the first announcement, an international reaction that will easily make the event notable, for example this BBC article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As creator, it's obvious his death will acquire significant coverage and analysis in the coming years. No Swan So Fine (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Additional info in connection with his death cannot be included in full in other articles.--Ipigott (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article. Navalny was too great a man to be glossed over like that. 2600:1700:3FB0:9C20:DD91:FCC8:35DD:E70F (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A major event in world affairs. Spicemix (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is already covered in the New York Times and other outlets; given his profile within the country, I'm almost certain more will come out. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Same as above LemonBoiii (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose major event, more verification will come out. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ plz edit my user pg! Talk 16:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The UK foreign secretary has already said there should be consequences against the Putin regime for Navalny's death. It's quite possible that reactions to his death could be politically significant in Russia and perhaps even change foreign policies abroad. Dorgesh (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously notable event, with the main article being a large one already. Ur frnd (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:FORK and WP:SIZESPLIT from the main biographical article. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Alexei Navalny's death can be viewed from many perspectives. Similar to other controversial deaths, consensus is to create a decided page. RKGMPhaild (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep -- The list of "keep"s is padded a bit by a few people not really citing good policy reasons, but even after you exclude those I think there's still a pretty clear consensus here that, while the current article may need work, the actual topic is already a significant one that merits its own article (rebutting the main delete argument of WP:TOOSOON). A couple of people (Ur frnd, Abcmaxx) have also cited the large size of the parent article, which a merge would only add to, and Ipigott also wrote that information about Navalny's death would not be able to receive adequate coverage in a separate article. These are all sound policy reasons, and I think the "immediate relevance" argument convincingly outweighs the "too soon" concerns. -- 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep. This article has adequate coverage and keeps a POV slant about his death out of the main article. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While notability is obviously there, the fact that even Navalny's family and his lawyer haven't confirmed the death brings this close to BLP violation territory. On the (extremely slight) off-chance that Navalny is still alive, or the (slightly more likely) chance that there won't be independent confirmation of his death anytime soon, this article will need major rethinking. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the various reasons already provided. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A large number of media outlets, reliable ones too, have covered this event. This subject is already notable enough to be its own article
HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Alexei Navalny per WP:NOTNEWS and/or WP:TOOSOON. As noted above, many of the "keep" votes are WP:CRYSTAL arguments that the topic will eventually warrant a separate article in the future, or are plain arguments that we should keep this as a WP:POVFORK and WP:QUOTEFARM (or are variations of WP:ILIKEIT) which are not good reasons to keep content. The "events" section and a summarized form of the "reactions" section (trimmed and likely omitting the international reactions which are just social media quotes) could easily be merged into the main biography, with the rest of this article then being redundant. See Death of Henry Kissinger for a similar example. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Henry Kissinger is a bad example to use as his death was straightforward. I don't know what long term coverage there might be, but this certainly isn't a usual death case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what are your sources for that, roughly half a day of breaking news coverage? Do I understand correctly that there isn't even an official confirmation that he has died? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well according to the BBC: "The weight of international opinion does not appear to tally with Russia's account of what happened to him." [9] This is significantly different from Kissinger who died of natural causes. If Navalny were alive then it would go against this consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This event can be viewed from different perspectives, there will be more materials coming out which will obviously cause controversy and it will need its own page.
IKasio (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What point of view? It only matters if the event was notable enough for a separate page - based on the coverage in multiple RS. My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is relatively significant international event, and could have consequences for Russia and other countries Discombobulates (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. obviously notable Tdmurlock (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. No mention target has been identified, but a redirect can be created at editorial discretion. Star Mississippi 15:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maven Securities[edit]

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

There is no quality media coverage. Out of 7 links, most of them refer to the same website 13Joker13 (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is probably not going to make a difference to this discussion but FYI, nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Not sure what this user has against me, but he has tried to get other articles of mine deleted under different accounts. - Imcdc Contact 10:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or mention in another article Agreed, fails WP:GNG, other than the sources already in the article (which are mostly the same site), I haven't found anything other than passing mentions. Could probably have a section in another article, but doesn't need its own. Endersslay (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 15:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Dvořák (dancer)[edit]

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

I'm considering this article for deletion per multiple issues, all of which have been tagged for almost six years. Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia is also poorly-sourced. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - seems poorly sourced, and poorly written Mr Vili talk 23:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Ik Nazar[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:GNG and the essay WP:NTV: in a WP:BEFORE search I can only find the briefest mentions of the series, in articles about the actors who appeared in it. The rest was bootlegs of the series on social media. It was one of several series nominated for a Lux Style Award in 2010, but I can't see how this alone brings it over the line for WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The only coverage I can find is already used in the article and this [11], both of which are trivial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ketan Kadam[edit]

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

non-notable, advertorial. only WP:RS is WP:NYT which discusses the restaurant and not the founder, there is just one mention that too "Ketan Kadam, one of the restaurant’s owners" User4edits (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User4edits, should we have this page deleted?
@Dustfreeworld -- I do not know, and it does not matter. What about this article, btw? User4edits (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and Maharashtra. User4edits (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Restaurants might be notable, this person isn't. Simply being mentioned in the articles isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seem to be plenty of sources (I just added seven, and all I did to find them was to put his name into Google News and see if anything interesting popped up), but more to the point, the article is about both the businesses and their founder. It would be silly to delete the article about him, which is approximately half about him and half about his restaurants, then re-create an article, only under a different title, that is approximately half about his restaurants and half about him. The big restaurant chain is probably separately notable (it's unusual for a restaurant chain to have hundreds of stores in multiple countries and not be notable), but that's a consideration for another day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All restaurant chains will have some news articles on them, including their founder's name. He may be included in the restaurant's article (if that is notable), but having an article on him should be merited only on his demonstrated notability, which I still can not find. User4edits (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposed notablities:
    1. opened one of the first nightclubs in Mumbai -- as rest of the first would have
    2. 'mortgaged his home in 2000 to start a Lebanese restaurant which was later sold -- as businesses do usually
    3. opened a fine-dining Italian restaurant -- which was covered by local media (as usual) and a "Restaurant Report" by NYT
    4. 2013, he was working towards opening bars -- again mentioned once in running (amongst statements (media bytes) taken from others)
    5. Left alcohol business -- Covered by a restaurant niche-news type (reliable?)
    6. An award by PETA -- innovation - replacing horses (per Supreme Court Order) by Batteries
    7. "invented" anti-theft manhole covers?? - ...??..
    Summary: Still, can't find what this man is notable for. Not any restaurant or bar has been notable. His "inventions" grab one-time attention of media but do not fructify to even the second phase of discussion (forget implementation even on a pilot basis), there is no follow-up on such remarkable "inventions".
    I do not wish to belittle someone's hardwork or attempts, but forcing everyone and everything on Wikipedia is counter-productive(makes WP a white/yellow pages).
    User4edits (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that you have quite the right idea. There aren't "proposed notabilities" (which is not a concept any notability guideline recognizes). You don't have to "find what this man is notable for". The GNG does not require that the subject be notable for something; it only requires that they be notable. As the top of Wikipedia:Notability puts it, we want articles about subjects that have received attention from the world at large. This includes people who are "famous for being famous", instead of having received attention for something that is easy to understand. See, e.g., Rob Enderle, whom one of the newspaper articles (cited in the article) said "sometimes seems like the most-quoted man in America". If you're looking for what Enderle's "notable for", I guess you could say that he's notable for giving soundbites to reporters a couple thousand times a year. He got coverage; therefore he qualifies for an article. Ditto for this man: even if you don't understand or agree with why this businessman got coverage, he did get that coverage – amounting to a couple thousand words across more than 20 English-language sources – and therefore he qualifies for an article.
    (As for "forcing everyone and everything on Wikipedia", I don't think anyone familiar with my editing would consider that to be a realistic possibility. You might be interested in the incomplete list at User:WhatamIdoing#Policies and guidelines you can ask me about.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the analysis, most are just routine business happenings told as articles, nothing terribly notable about most of them. Oaktree b (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
struck my duplicate !vote above Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. No one is arguing for retention (or anything else). Star Mississippi 15:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

25th Bangladesh Infantry Regiment[edit]

25th Bangladesh Infantry Regiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Extensive searches in English and Bengali found nothing deeper than a couple of passing mentions. The unit exists, but no significant coverage of it exists, so fails WP:MILUNIT and WP:GNG. No reliably sourced content to merge. Worldbruce (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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.

As an aside, I find much of linguistics "impenetrable". I haven't tried to read his work though. Liz Read! Talk! 03:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Kravchenko (linguist)[edit]

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

He sounds like he might meet WP:PROF even if not WP:GNG, but I couldn't find sources to confirm this. Boleyn (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAUTHOR might qualify if people can find more reviews of his books, I quickly found doi:10.1075/arcl.1.15sha but my knowledge of Russian isn't good enough to find more at this moment. Umimmak (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:He appears to be a relatively significant linguist - not just an academic. BulgarianCat (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: What's his citation factor, given the large number of papers found in Gscholar, I'd be surprised if he doesn't pass academic notability... Seems to be cited by over 700 other papers per ResearchGate [12] Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'm seeing citation counts on Google Scholar of 247 ("Essential properties of language"), 116 ("The experiential basis of speech and writing"), 97 ("Two views on language ecology and ecolinguistics"), and then dropping steeply from there. This is borderline, but not really enough to convince me. Given that there doesn't seem to be much to say beyond the citation counts (it doesn't help that his writing is so impenetrable, apparently deliberately, as to make it impossible to infer what his actual contributions are), I'm inclined to put this on the delete side of the border. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Vulcans (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND, unsourced since creation in 2008. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 14:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Springdale Farms[edit]

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

Agree with the hatnote that purpose of page appears to be to promote the business. The refs appear to be run-of-the-mill and nothing much suggests this is more notable than any other similar small business JMWt (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the conclusions from the old AfD, I don't think that a news articles about a business recovery after a fire (when that's basically the only source to count towards the GNG) is good enough in 2024 JMWt (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets GNG, just as it did in the first AFD four years ago. Persingo (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Genovese, Peter (2005). Food Lovers' Guide to New Jersey: Best Local Specialties, Markets, Recipes, Restaurants, Events, and More. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 159. ISBN 0-7627-3079-X. ISSN 1550-8951. Retrieved 2024-02-20 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Springdale Farms, 1638 South Springdale Road, Cherry Hill; (856) 424-8674; www.springdalefarms.com. The only working farm left in suburbanized Cherry Hill, hundred-acre Springdale Farms produces more than thirty kinds of vegetables. The bakery, though, is where you might want to start. Up to twenty-five kinds of pies are available, from apple, peach, and blueberry crumb to cherry vanilla, sweet potato crunch, and lemon blueberry. There are also cakes, muffins, breads, cinnamon rolls, brownies, cookies, and rolls, all made on the premises. Springdale offers pick-your-own fruits and vegetables; pick-your-own strawberries are especially popular. Biggest attraction for kids: the Maize Quest, a corn-stalk maze generally open from mid-September through early November. Each year, it's a different theme; the one in 2004 re-created the 1804 Lewis and Clark Expedition."

    2. Nichols, Rick (2008-07-31). "You say tomato, I say Ramapo - a N. J. legend returns". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.

      The article notes: "The long, soaking rain last week was a blessing for the first-run Jersey tomatoes at Cherry Hill's singular Springdale Farms, basking at the moment in unsolicited and decidedly premature celebrity. The New York Times had featured it in an update on the guilt-driven quest to redeem the lost Jersey tomato. ... So recent customers at its market on South Springdale Road have had to content themselves with what the sign on the produce bin described as "field-grown beefsteak tomatoes," which is to say tomatoes without any particular bragging rights or heirloom-stoked cult following. ... It was Ebert's father, Alan, who started Springdale as a truck farm under contract to Campbell's in 1949. But by the '60s, it was wholesaling produce and slicing tomatoes, the tender Ramapo (circa 1968) proudly included."

    3. Walsh, Jim (2017-10-01). "Mary Ebert, Springdale Farms' matriarch, dies at 93". Courier-Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.

      The article notes: "Ebert, 93, founded Springdale Farms in 1949 with her husband Alan. She has run the Springdale Road property with family members since her spouse’s death in 1988. The business is Cherry Hill’s last working farm, although the traditional crops of fruits and vegetables have been augmented by modern attractions like hayrides, an autumn corn maze and a farm store known for its pies and other baked goods."

    4. Sacharow, Fredda (1988-12-11). "A Farm Family Stubbornly Refuses to Quit Land". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.

      The article notes: "Alan and Mary Ebert, who have owned Springdale Farms since 1950, when Cherry Hill was 75 percent farmland, said their decision to keep the 100-acre farm going came just days after the Jan. 23 fire. They recently opened a market to replace the burned building. ... The fire, which razed the couple's 21-year-old store, began in the early morning hours and spread rapidly, consuming the 3,800-square-foot building. The store held cash registers, intercom systems, refrigeration units, pottery and seasonal decorations. Everything was lost. The authorities ruled the fire suspicious. An investigation is continuing."

    5. Grande, Candy (2014-08-15). "5 family-friendly farms to explore in South Jersey". Courier-Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.

      The article notes: "A trip to Springdale Farms is always a great way to spend some time in the summer. The farms grows a variety of crops such as sweet corn, eight different types of tomatoes, 12 kinds of eggplants, summer squash, blackberries, cucumbers and cantaloupes. Each crop is harvested every morning and sold in the farm's produce market. ... says John Ebert, co-owner of the farm. ... Don't forget to stop by the farm's bakery department for the pie of the month, a delicious peach blueberry creation guaranteed to satisfy sweets lovers. If you prefer something different, browse through the other 35 different pies offered."

    6. Graham, Kristen A. (2002-10-06). "Farmers setting out to grow bumper crop of 'agritainment' - A harvest of 'agritainment' Farms are growing a different cash crop: Class trips and hayrides". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.

      The article notes: "Looking out over the 100 acres that his family still works, John Ebert of Springdale Farms recalled how his parents, Alan and Mary, bought their spread in 1949, when Cherry Hill was Delaware Township and 82 farms were in operation. Originally, the family grew tomatoes and parsley for Campbell's Soup. They decided to press on as farm prices tanked about 20 years ago, after fire destroyed their market, after Alan Ebert died suddenly. ... Mary Ann Jarvis, who owns Springdale Farms along with her husband, Tom, and Ebert, her brother, describes the work as exacting but rewarding."

    7. Jennings, John Way (1988-01-24). "Fire Ruins Cherry Hill Fruit Stand". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.

      The article notes: "No injuries were reported when the one-story block-and-frame building in Cherry Hill that was the retail market for the 100-acre Springdale Farms, located on Springdale Road between Route 70 and Kresson Road, burned just before 2 a.m. ... The farm is owned by Alan Ebert, his sons, Thomas and John, and a daughter, Mary Ann Jarvis."

    8. Uncle John's Bathroom Reader Plunges into New Jersey. San Diego: Portable Press. 2005. ISBN 978-1-60710-602-9. Retrieved 2024-02-20 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Springdale Farms is situated on 100 acres in Cherry Hill and has been a working farm for over 53 years. Throughout the year, you can find more than 30 kinds of produce and flowers there. Customers get a hands-on experience by actually picking their own fruits and vegetables right off the vine!"

    9. Lobrutto, Christina (2016-06-17). "7 'pick-your-own' farms in South Jersey". PhillyVoice. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.

      The article notes: "Springdale Farms, which prides itself on being "Cherry Hill's last working farm," has been growing and selling fresh fruits and vegetables on Springdale Road for more than 60 years. While the farm is especially known for its pick-your-own strawberries, it also offers the public a variety of other pick-your-own produce, as well as attractions like a corn maze, hayrides and a plant yard. Springdale also offers a bunch of "home baked goodness" in its bakery. From fresh apple cider donuts to home-baked pies and breads, there's a little something for everyone."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Springdale Farms to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the sources in the article and cited above. The article could use an editing pass for tone but is no where near bad enough to delete on that basis when sources demonstrating notability exist. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Anarchism#See also. ✗plicit 14:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of anarchist communities[edit]

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

I have been trying to figure out how to make this list work since I first arrived on Wikipedia, nearly five years ago. Now I think it's time to draw a line under the experience and call it quits. Since this list's creation, it has had an endemic problem with its inclusion criteria, which has led to it wildly expanding and contracting over time. Attempts to find a solid criteria have been futile, with no consensus formed as to what constitutes a "community" or even what makes something "anarchist". This has led to inclusion and exclusion being driven almost entirely by individual vibes, i.e. whether someone likes or doesn't like a certain entry, rather than any verifiable information in reliable sources. Over the years, this list has been a breeding ground for novel synthesis and original research.

In scholarly literature, the term "anarchist community" itself is used in a variety of different ways, none of which are actually reflected in this list (it's usually used in the same way as one would use "immigrant community"). Attempts to find a better name for the list have likewise gone nowhere, as there is nothing solid that actually groups together all the various different phenomenons included. Attempts to broaden the criteria would have led to it being so ill-defined that almost anything could be included, while attempts to narrow the inclusion criteria down to more specific and fundamental characteristics would effectively eliminate the list.

Two of the list's sections have now been merged into more appropriate listacles, the list of intentional communities and list of self-managed social centres, which each have a more clearly defined and easily verified criteria for inclusion. What remains are a series of different phenomena that share little in common other than anarchists being involved (sometimes not even in the driving seat). I don't think what's left over provides us with a particularly informative list that couldn't work just as well by adding some of them to the "See also" section of other articles.

As I don't think it's possible for a well-researched and stable version of this list to be established, as this is a magnet for original research and novel synthesis, and as there is no clear potential redirect target or other place to merge the remaining entries, I am nominating this article for deletion. I understand this may not be a popular proposal, but I think this is a discussion that needs to be had. Grnrchst (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Wouldn't the page history have to be maintained for attribution reasons, since its content was merged into other pages? If so maybe keep as a redirect to one of these pages since I think that's required by copyright (if I'm not misunderstanding) but from what I can see the scope of the page is duplicated by other, better and clearer lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Grnrchst and czar. Thanks both for your work sorting this out prior to the AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NEO CANDO[edit]

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

I'm not sure exactly what is going on here, but the page is clearly not written to the norms of en.wiki and has been without proper referencing for many years. To me it reads like an essay imported from elsewhere (I've not been able to find a source) but it is such a skipfire that it needs WP:TNT until someone can completely rewrite it from scratch with proper referencing. JMWt (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark E. Shaw[edit]

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

Not yet notable by WP:BIO or WP:GNG. I can't find significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources, and most of the sources here are his own writing. There are passing mentions of him in the four World (magazine) articles cited, but all four articles are about addiction generally, not Shaw himself.

A similarly worded attempt in April 2023 by a sockpuppet of User:BrookeCook at Mark Edward Shaw was moved to draft, then speedy deleted G5, and the SPI for BrookeCook has been pretty busy lately. Wikishovel (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the article reads to me like a clear cut case of paid editing. The fact that the author tried to hide a COI template by moving it to the talkpage doesn't help. Good day—RetroCosmos talk 13:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looking thorugh the news results pretty much all of them were for other people called Mark Shaw instead of him, everything else I could find is a primary source or a small generic author bigography. (And to be clear, no I'm not him and have no relation to him) Shaws username . talk . 13:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: My limited time at AfC and the log history listed above all incline me towards seeing this as a likely PROMO work. Delete, with an eye to salting. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per the nom, most of these citations are stuff written by himself. Yolandagonzales (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Half of the sourcing is WP:PRIMARY. A dash of promo as well, with ordained minister, nouthetic counselor, addiction counselor, author, public speaker... TLAtlak 07:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue On-Line Service[edit]

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

It’s unclear what makes this website notable. If it was innovative in any way, a sentence or two on Revenue Commissioners, with an appropriate reference, would surely suffice. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Wineberg[edit]

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

Non-notable voice actor. Article has been repeatedly recreated by the same user, and was previously deleted under criterion A7. CycloneYoris talk! 08:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – this BLP has 0 references. Online, it's essentially just IMDb and Fandom.com, not WP:INDEPENDENT. I think speedy delete could work here, but oh well.
TLA (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I brought it to AfD because the article had been deleted under A7 before, but I guess it could be speedy deleted now that the creator has been blocked. CycloneYoris talk! 21:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, since they were blocked after creating the article, unless I'm misreading. -- asilvering (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus among participants in this discussion is that the article's subject presently fails WP:NACTOR owing to lack of sufficient sourcing. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fisayomi Abebi[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:NACTOR or WP:PRODUCER, child actor who produced a film at the age of ten. Article says she has "worked on set" with notable actors, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. The only reliable source I can find for her online is the Nigerian Tribune interview cited, but interviews are WP:Primary sources, and I can't find coverage of her in independent, secondary sources, just a lot of social media, and some passing mentions in gossip articles about a purported relative. Wikishovel (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikishovel The article will be worked upon. It will be properly restructured to meet wikipedia guidelines completely. Jutos222 (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove the deletion tag! That's disruptive to the process here and counter-productive to our efforts. Oaktree b (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well, the deletion tag has been removed from the article, so that's an issue... I can only find this [14]. Rest is celebrity gossip articles about having a child and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tried restoring the deletion tag, but an edit conflict won't let me. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The creator has tried the remove the AfD tag six times and multiple editors are in 3rr territory. I have left a warning on the creator's talk page. If they persist, please take this to the 3rr or ANI notice board. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. Appears they've also removed the notice from their talk page. Oh boy. Oaktree b (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Page creator's sort of unofficial mentor here. This is a noble effort to improve the encyclopedia made by an editor who is trying to learn, but I am afraid that there simply isn't adequate sourcing for notability yet. I concur with Oaktree b; I could only find interviews and unreliable stuff. As for the edit warring, I left a message on their talk page, which has since been blanked by them along with their userpage. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't pass WP:NACTOR at this point in time, could not find multiple instances of significant coverage in secondary sources. Article creator can request undeletion if this changes in the future. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 05:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't pass WP:NACTOR right now, so WP:TOOSOON. Undelete if that changes. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails NACTOR. Sources are entirely unreliable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons above. Nothing to add. Best, Reading Beans 17:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of sufficient sourcing. GraziePrego (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article would be retain, we will try our best to work on the sourcing, to meet with up with wikipedia demands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jutos222 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Bulgaria women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 07:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kremena Prodanova[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Bulgaria women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2008, 2009, 2012, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bulgaria. JTtheOG (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 12:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried looking for sources in Cyrillic, too, and got nothing, too. It was somewhat telling that even the sport statistics WWW sites had dashes in some of their fields indicating missing statistics. There's just not anywhere near enough recorded knowledge to be had for a biography. Uncle G (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Panama women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yadira Pacheco[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Panama women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2006, 2007, 2008, 2014, 2015, 2018, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Rodriguez (politician)[edit]

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

Unnotable mayor failing WP:GNG, WP:NPOL and WP:NCRIME. Previously nomination in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination (changed from "redirect"). BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BottleOfChocolateMilk: I think you're confusing this with the City of Bell scandal, which Rodriguez was not involved in. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to City of Bell scandal. Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Bello[edit]

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

Unnotable mayor that fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL and WP:NCRIME. Could be redirected to City of Bell scandal as a possible WP:ATD. Previously nomination in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to City of Bell scandal. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per previous vote. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus here, even for draftification. Editors are encouraged to take action and improve the article or bring it back to AFD at a future date. Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idiosyncrasy[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article that, when you strip out all the OR and uncited sections, is not much more than a WP:DICTDEF. First two sources are dictionaries, and most of the remainder are just passing examples of the word "idiosyncrasy" being used to describe something distinctive or unusual (in medicine, language, investments, and so on). Nothing other than the word ties together all these far-flung examples; the article is a Frankenstein monster of examples in search of a concept. The edit history is surprisingly turbulent, with frequent vandalism and sections being added (and later removed) to support someone's pet example of something idiosyncratic. The only part that seems like a well-developed and notable concept is "idiosyncratic risk" in economics, which could have its own article, but is currently a redirect to the bottom section of this article. 336 other articles link to this one, which makes me hesitate to suggest a straight-up deletion, but I think a delete and redirect to Wiktionary might be the best choice. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I agree in principle it should be a dict def, and furthermore it is a bit WP:OR. But the term seems to have significant, distinctive technical meanings in a variety of fields, beyond what a dict def can cover, which meets I forget which notability guideline. The article is likely to be useful to users. If the OR issue is too serious, we can draftify. But I think the best would be to keep and approve it. Llajwa (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a user who has just used the page, I found the page to be confusing as it was linked to me from the 2022 Buffalo shooting - Wikipedia article. I do appreciate the page however as I do find the article to have several very technical definitions, I find useful. None of them fit the use of the word from the article I was linked from aside from the loosely fitting primary definition in the article. The primary definition however is also marked as in need of citation which makes me distrust it as I believe it should. As far as deletion goes; as a plebian user I would say this page has been more useful to me than not even though it has left me more confused and in need of doing more research into the topic.
    I apologize for any misuse of this forum. 66.211.229.125 (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this useful feedback! Llajwa (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve. Articles on well-established but amorphous aspects of the human experience are some of the most difficult to write, but also some of the most important to have. BD2412 T 00:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article, at present, violates WP:BROADCONCEPT; it very obviously fails the "expert" test (the same person cannot be an expert of idiosyncrasy in the medical, linguistic, and economic sense without having to be an expert in multiple fields of knowledge). If the article is to be retained, this needs to be addressed. TompaDompa (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "expert" test—which, as it happens, I created—is a guideline, and serves as a floor, not a ceiling. It describes circumstances under which a topic is not genuinely ambiguous, not whether a topic can be the subject of an article. Glad to see it cited, though. BD2412 T 18:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOTDICTIONARY (On Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by.), on the other hand, is a policy and applies in much the same way—this isn't one topic but several different ones. One solution might be to turn this into a disambiguation page. That's what we do for e.g. Specificity. TompaDompa (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said before, articles on concepts like these can be the most difficult to write, but are also the most important to have. That a topic is relevant to multiple fields does not make a it multiple topics. BD2412 T 15:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Surely, if you read the article, you can see that it's not about "the concept of idiosyncrasy" but various different concepts all of which use the adjective "idiosyncratic"? An adjective does not a topic make (nor does a noun or a collocation, for that matter). TompaDompa (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • The article could stand substantial expansion and improvement, but the core concept remains independently notable. BD2412 T 22:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              There is no core concept though. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              There are 120,000 Google Scholar hits for "Idiosyncrasy", with the first few pages of returns including numerous scholarly articles on the generalized concept. BD2412 T 17:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              Could you then pick WP:THREE of those scholarly articles on the generalized concept that demonstrate that it is indeed a singular topic? It might help others who are not yet convinced to see your point of view. TompaDompa (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              Obviously many of these will quickly resolve to examples in specific fields, but Grant Allen, "Idiosyncrasy", Mind Vol. 8, No. 32 (Oct., 1883), pp. 487-505 looks promising. A second is Heather Orom and Daniel Cervone, "Personality dynamics, meaning, and idiosyncrasy: Identifying cross-situational coherence by assessing personality architecture", Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 43, Issue 2 (April 2009), pp. 228-240. A third might be Barry Smith, "Against Idiosyncrasy in Ontology Development", in B. Bennett and C. Fellbaum, eds., Formal Ontology in Information Systems (2006), p. 15. BD2412 T 17:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              The first of those seems to use "idiosyncrasy" to mean "a unique combination of elements". That does not match our article (does not apply to idiosyncratic drug reaction, for instance). The second uses "idiosyncrasy" specifically about personality. The third uses "idiosyncrasy" only once—in the title—and is a critique of ISO 15926 (or more to the point what the author considers to a be a misapplication thereof). This does not, to me, demonstrate an overarching concept. On the contrary, they use the word in completely different ways. It's an equivocation, really. TompaDompa (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              Are you suggesting that an idiosyncratic drug reaction is not a drug reaction that is idiosyncratic? The concept of idiosyncrasy appears to originate with personality, and have been applied to other things thereafter, which is exactly what a good article will teach the reader about. BD2412 T 22:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              An idiosyncratic drug reaction is not rooted in personality, nor is it a unique combination of elements. So no, it is not a drug reaction that is idiosyncratic in the sense(s) used by the sources you suggested demonstrated an overarching topic. Some forms of drug-induced liver injury and Stevens–Johnson syndrome are examples of idiosyncratic drug reactions. A lesson in etymology is not the same thing as an overarching topic. These are different topics using shared terminology. TompaDompa (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              The article is not well-written, but an idiosyncratic drug reaction is one rooted in the unique characteristics (i.e., idiosyncrasies) of the person receiving the drug, rather than a quality of the drug itself. BD2412 T 22:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              That's not exactly true. Idiosyncratic drug reactions are unrelated to the regular pharmacological mechanism of action of the drug, but there are still drugs such as Lamotrigine that cause such reactions at a fairly high rate. That's a quality of the drug, to use your words. TompaDompa (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              How do you square occurring "at a fairly high rate" with occurring "rarely"? BD2412 T 01:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              Compared to other drugs versus absolute numbers. Another example would be Clozapine and agranulocytosis. TompaDompa (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There doesn't seem to be an actual topic here, rather than a definition along with a list of unrelated things that happen to include the adjective "idiosyncratic". BD seems to think there's something here to write an article about (which I remain skeptical of), but even if so, there's nothing here that's salvageable that would help in that endeavor. WP:TNT applies, if nothing else, too. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep and improve. An idiosyncrasy is a unique or specific feature, making the central topic applicable across many fields in the same way an "Error" is - which has a strong example of what this page would ideally look like. This page does not do a good job of conveying this at present, but there is a singular topic of use here. A substantial revision may be necessary, but deletion appears very inappropriate, as it is on a distinct topic. SleepyOctopus (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC) — SleepyOctopus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Split into Idiosyncrasy (linguistics), Idiosyncrasy (pharmacology), Idiosyncrasy (economics), etc. This feels like several tangentally related articles bundled into one for no reason other than their names. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [ User ] [ Talk ] [ Contributions ] 19:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest that the primary topic of the term is idiosyncrasy in people, which is (as indicated in the source I added to the article) can be contrasted against eccentricity; everything else is an evolution from that meaning. BD2412 T 21:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure there necessarily is a primary topic, but at any rate the current scope is very different from this suggestion. TompaDompa (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Most of the topics are not called "idiosyncrasy" at all, but "idiosyncratic something". The only other article with "idiosyncrasy" leading the title is Idiosyncrasy credit, which is squarely about the human form. BD2412 T 22:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • That has indeed been a point made about why the current state of this article rests upon an improper foundation, including by me above. TompaDompa (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • The other uses still derive from the original meaning. BD2412 T 23:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sure, but shared etymology does not a singular topic make. TompaDompa (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's more than a "shared etymology", though. Hippopotamus and Hippocampus have a shared etymology, but no one would suggest that they are related in a derivational sense. An idiosyncratic drug reaction or economic development or linguistic convention is a one that is reminiscent of human idiosyncracy. BD2412 T 23:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                  • We can go stricter: using the same word doesn't make it the same topic. TompaDompa (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a coatrack article then. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [ User ] [ Talk ] [ Contributions ] 16:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus so far. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there is no coherence in the article or its sources that indicate anything beyond multiple dictionary usages of this word, not the job of a Wikipedia article. We already have idiosyncratic drug reaction; there may perhaps be scope for one or two other articles on idiosyncratic things, but this one is DICDEF or SYNTH (according to taste) and needs to be deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep article needs to be worked upon, not deleted. We are encyclopaedia, this is an acceptable topic for encyclopaedia rather than social media influencers, person starring in three films/tv shows, or played one game, or won a beauty pageant. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think BD2412's perspective is very respectable, and an article on idiosyncrasy could be of great value across disciplines. That being said, the current article is confusing or unhelpful for readers (per the IP comment), with an ill-defined scope that makes accusations of WP:NOTDICTIONARY very valid. I wonder if this is one of those rare cases in which draftification might be a good way forward. On the other hand, one question in the back of my mind is whether an article on idiosyncrasy could be written without violating WP:OR. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have no objection to draftification. BD2412 T 03:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for clearer consensus, which currently is split.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, if people want to Draftify it and start afresh then fine, but please don't bring it back in anything like its current state; it must be a single coherent topic, as demonstrated by (future) sources. I'm skeptical that it can succeed but splitting may have some merit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marína Georgievová[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect or just redirect to Miss Word 2010, but it could unbalance that article. Boleyn (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The guideline is found at WP:NBEAUTY. Many are deleted too. Geschichte (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find evidence that she meets either WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG. As for the above statement that "...Virtually every one has their own page...", I disagree. I looked at the Miss World 2010 page, and only one third of the contestants have their own page. Marína Georgievová isn't even in the top 25 finishers. Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: you can definitely find a fair amount coverage of her in mainstream Slovakian media, if anyone wants to do the legwork.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I tried to but I was only able to find a story about her winning the pageant and vowing not to replace her boyfriend with a rich man like the previous winners of Miss Slovakia did, then stories of her marrying a 60+ years old businessman and then some coverage of her being saddened by the death of her husband. I don't really think any of this is Wikipedia material, unfortunately. Newklear007 (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I love your brief summary of her life, fumbling around with Google translate is far less fun. I had picked up that she married a much older rich guy, I could not have imagined that development!!--Milowent • hasspoken 19:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the sources covering her in Slovakian are short-form and tabloidesque, not the type of referencing we need for a BLP. Mach61 (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 15:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramón Flores (trumpet player)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, and notability is not inherited. This is also an unref blp. I couldn't find a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Musician for To Sleep with Anger (according to this source), which got 17 nominations and won 6 of them. It technically does not contain a "Best Soundtrack" if such a category exists, but it did get nominated for Best Film and Best Feature, which includes everything.
  • I personally got to know about this man when watching the videos of the Yanni Live! The Concert Event. He's a notable solist in that concert. You can enjoy the concert here if you want and you will see him pop up every so often. It was a National Concert tour in the US with 54? concerts during that tour. The album with that concert on it reached no 86 in the Billboard 200 and no 1 on the Billboard "Top New Age Albums".
That makes him notable in WP:MUSICBIO for point 2, 4 and possibly 10. I am not sure that I have the time to edit the page in any reasonable time, but I hope that this helps show that he is indeed notable to be included on Wikipedia. Sumurai8 (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the three sources from the Spanish Wikipedia article should be examined if they haven't already. Left guide (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftify: I checked the Spanish article but only one of the sources might qualify for GNG, though reliability/independence is unclear. I also added some additional sources I found to satisfy WP:V but none were SIGOV (checked Newspapers.com, ProQuest and Google Books). Sumurai8 appears to be willing to work on it but needs more time and there may very well be better sources available, especially in Spanish. S0091 (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify for possible improvement as has potential in view of earlier comments, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social-liberal conservatism[edit]

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

Article seems to be based largely on WP:OR. I'm only seeing passing mentions with a before search and the references in the article. Justiyaya 01:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The sources so far are abysmal. Additionally, the article was created by copying a declined draft and putting it into article space. ''Flux55'' (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Economics, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As noted by User:Flux55, the author has also created a draft, Draft:Social liberal conservatism. If the article is deleted, the draft will still be in draft space for possible improvement of sourcing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most sources (if not all) don't mention the term the article is about. Two citations are the article's own draft. The penultimate one Politic-Ed.com, redirects to a porn site, despite the citations supposedly having been added within the last 24h. Amazing. Cortador (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. It doesn't redirect there for me. Although even that isn't much of an improvement as the site is just a thinly-veiled political blog. ''Flux55'' (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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! 02:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dunihi[edit]

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

Only ref is a now-dead Symantec AV signature database entry; insufficient independent coverage to establish notability (encountered via System Infected: Backdoor VBS Dunihi redirect during TfD cleanup of {{R of dubious utility}}) DefaultFree (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andi Irfan[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. I was able to find this writeup in a Tribun Network local paper but otherwise can't find any significant secondary coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 19:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per sources below which show notability. I didn't receive the ping of Das osmnezz as they did not sign their post (meaning a ping would not work). GiantSnowman 11:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @Svartner:, @GiantSnowman:, I found [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], among many more Indonesian sources. Young player with ongoing career in fully pro Indonesian top flight which gets lots of media coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks,

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, Das osmnezz's sources do look like they establish notability to me. I'm happy to have this closed as keep. I expect that the above pings did not go through due to the lack of a signature, Svartner, GiantSnowman. signed, Rosguill talk 02:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem for me, as I said previously, these top-level players in Indonesia would tend to have established notability, whether in the medium term, due to the relevance of the sport in the country. Svartner (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Das osmnezz, I would appreciate if you could share what search terms you used to find this coverage; I would not have opened an AfD if I had come across them. signed, Rosguill talk 03:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SongLyrics[edit]

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

I don't seem to find anything about this website anywhere in news online, even with as much noise reduction as possible from googling the website. PROD contested by an IP. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No SIGCOV or RS. This isn't the type of website to get any in the first place. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_February_16&oldid=1209905105"