Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 25 January 27 >

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 Will nominated individually for a fair discussion‎. (non-admin closure)  // Timothy :: talk  16:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programmes broadcast by TVB[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of television programmes broadcast by TVB (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:NLIST, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. WP:LISTCRITERIA, "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit.", "Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence."

Article is a giant directory of programs. Most of it is either unsourced or wikilinked to other articles that have info on the show but nothing about it being broadcast on the channel other than it was on the channel, this info is normally unsourced.

The main article already has a list of notable original programing. See TVB#Notable shows from TVB. Nothing properly sourced to merge.

There are also individual articles for the programing info for each year, plus bonus articles just for dramas, again one article per year.

All series by year
Dramass by year

The just to keep track of all the lists there also is:

Summary:

  • Articles fails NLIST, no sources showing the entries for a subject (eg:List of TVB dramas in 2018) have been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources.
  • Articles fail NOTDIRECTORY, WWIN, Wikipedia is not an electronic programming guide.

I'm hoping against precedent that a group nom can clean this up, Wikipedia is not a historical programming directory for television channels.  // Timothy :: talk  23:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: List of TVB dramas in 2024 does not currently exist in mainspace; it briefly did, but was quickly sent to draftspace and has since been declined twice at AfC. As it is a draft it, as with the template, should not be directly part of this nomination, but it is again a pending AfC submission and any reviewer there may need to take this nomination of many similar articles into account. No opinion at this time on any of the other lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This kind of list is common on Wikipedia: see List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel, List of television programmes broadcast by the BBC, List of programs broadcast by CBS and many, many more. In fact, there are 485 other lists in Category:Lists of television series by network. I know that arguments based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should be avoided, but in this case so much other stuff exists that it appears to be simply common practice for a network to have an article like this. Furthermore, citing WP:NOTDIRECTORY is a misunderstanding of the policy. Item #5, aka WP:NOTTVGUIDE, says that an article shouldn't list upcoming events, but "historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." Toughpigs (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree with Toughpigs, TVB dramas in Hong Kong programmes broadcast does existed but it released the number of TVB drama episode into other TVB drama episode released as well. The certain person who trying to create this page with complaining about not a historical programming directory for television channels basically it was invalid and I already checked revision background on the certain person was created by Tuesday October 1, 2019 who don't understand what the TVB broadcast is about. Personally I oppose the article of deletion with nomination and I am not trying to persuade here but certain person who is the one to cause persuade and destructive plan with polticial stance as for no reason so that's why the certain person need to deserved for WP:BREAK aka quit raging. Cool90630 (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: TV guides don't get a special exception from notability guidelines. NLIST and NOTDIRECTORY exist for a reason. Wikipedia deletes this type of article often when it breaks NOTDIRECTORY, and has no sourcing showing an article meets NLIST, here are recent examples:
 // Timothy :: talk  06:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "TVB series" has been treated as "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

    Summary of sources
    TVB series have been covered in several academic sources and numerous media sources. The academic sources discuss the shows in the context of TVB's history. The media sources discuss the shows in the context of the highest rated, the lowest rated, the "most classic", and the "best".

    Sources
    1. Cheuk, Pak-Tong (Fall 1999). "The Beginning of the Hong Kong New Wave: The Interactive Relationship Between Television and the Film Industry". Post Script. Vol. 19, no. 1. pp. 10–27. ISSN 0277-9897. ProQuest 2141429.

      The article notes: "In the early years, HK-TVB's Jade channel (the Chinese language service) broadcast only three locally-produced programs. Much of the remaining airtime was filled by foreign series, such as Doctor Kildare, I Spy, The Lucy Show, and Bonanza (Hong Kong Television Weekly 17-18). The station also showed early Mandarin and Cantonese pictures, such as The Revenge, Truth and False Husband (Chao-zhou-dialect pictures), Cool Chau Mei, andWonderful Princess (Hong Kong Television Weekly 14). In this, HK-TVB's initial programming strategy was no different from that of Rediffusion Cable. In 1968, however, HK-TVB produced its first drama series, A Dream Is a Dream, shown in 15-minute segments once every week."
      The article notes: "Gradually, more locally produced series gained popularity. Here is the list of the HK-TVB's top ten programs in November 1970: (1) Enjoy Yourself Tonight; (2) It Takes a Thief; (3) Tarzan; (4) Kao's Club; (5) Japanese Story; (6) Sharp's Club; (7) Night of Sharp; (8) Viceroy's On Life; (9) News and Weather Report; (10) The Fugitive. Of this list, half were imports (numbers 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10). On the other hand, the list also shows that locally produced series increasingly were favored by local audiences."
      The article notes: "In 1973, HK-TVB's new head of programming, Leong Suk-yi, produced the comedy series Seventy-Three, made up of 30-minute episodes shown once every week (30 episodes in all). Audiences welcomed the series for its refreshing satirical approach to social problems. It even garnered more viewers than Enjoy Yourself Tonight and became the territory's top rated program. The breakthrough achieved by Seventy-Three paved the way for series like Crossroad and CID (both 1976), Wonderfun (1977) and Seven Women; all were dramatic anthology series shot on film."
      The article notes: "In July 1978, the prime time program schedules of HK-TVB and CTV were as follows:"
      The article notes: "The dramatic mini-series that became most popular was HK-TVB's 1976 production Hotel. ... HK-TVB followed this success with the 1977 production A House is Not a Home."
    2. Siu, Chiu Shun Patrick (2022-11-11). The rise and fall of popular variety programs – A Hong Kong Case Study (PDF) (PhD thesis). Hong Kong Baptist University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
      The thesis notes: "Background information of the selected five cases". The thesis discusses five TVB shows: "Program for Case Study 1 - Enjoy Yourself Tonight", "Program for Case Study 2 - Cantopop at 50", "Program for Case Study 3 - Movie Buff Championship", "Program for Case Study 4 - Am I Healthy?", and "Program for Case Study 5 - Be My Guest".
    3. Chu, Yiu-Wai (2020-06-05). "Hong Kong (in China) studies: Hong Kong popular culture as example". Global Media and China. 5 (2). doi:10.1177/2059436420917564.
      The article notes: "For example, Kok-Leung Kuk, one of the executive directors of TVB martial arts classics including The Legend of the Condor Heroes《射鵰英雄傳》(1983), The Return of the Condor Heroes《神鵰俠侶》(1983) and The Duke of Mount Deer《鹿鼎記》(1984), co-directed a Mainland version"
      The article notes: "TVB started collaborating with Youku in 2013, airing its dramas on China’s leading online video and streaming service platforms. One such drama, Line Walker 《使徒行者》, recorded a total of 2.4 billion views in 2014. These drama serials provided higher production budgets to TVB, supposedly raising the production quality. Legal Mavericks 《踩過界》 (or 《盲俠大律師》 in the Mainland), the first co-produced title with iQiyi that premiered in June 2017, successfully accumulated total streaming views of over 500 million in Mainland China. Another co-production, Line Walker: The Prelude 《使徒行者2》, a crime-thriller drama serial, also reached remarkable total streaming views of over 2 billion on Tencent’s platform in Mainland China."
      The article notes: "Whether history will repeat itself or not is too early to tell, but, for example, in 2018, three of the five TVB serial dramas that recorded the lowest viewership ratings were co-productions: Another Era 《再創世紀》, Infernal Affairs 《無間道》, and The Great Adventurer Wesley 《冒險王衛斯理》 (“The Five TVB Dramas With Lowest Viewership Ratings,” 2019)."
    4. Wong, Yan-wah 黃欣華 (2019-01-11). "TVB「2018最低收視五部劇集」出爐　高成本劇集收視未必似如期" [TVB's "Five Lowest-Rated Drama Series of 2018" is released. The ratings of high-cost dramas may not be as expected] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
      The article lists the TVB series The Great Adventurer Wesley, Succession War, Infernal Affairs, Another Era, and Stealing Seconds.
    5. Lo, Alex (2011-01-28). "A golden age when TVB dictated popular culture". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-04-28. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
      The article notes: "Just as that period of time is considered the golden age of Hong Kong when its economy took off, it was arguably the best time for quality programmes at TVB. Dragon, Tiger and Leopard was an innovative crime drama series ... Another drama series, The Northern Stars, for a time, made being a social worker almost hip. Then came Gan Kwok-leung, arguably the best scriptwriter TVB ever had. He penned The Wrong Couples and No Biz Like Showbiz which restored the art of the dramatic dialogue that is hard to imagine for a TVB programme today."
    6. Koh, Jiamun (2022-05-25). "The 10 TVB Shows With The Highest Ratings In The Past 12 Years". 8 Days. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
      The article lists Forensic Heroes S4, Can't Buy Me Love, Triumph In The Skies 2, No Regrets, Forensic Heroes S3, Airport Strikers, Inbound Troubles, The Mysteries of Love, Story of Yanxi Palace, and Witness Insecurity.
    7. Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2023-09-01). "TVB今年13套劇集收視排行榜　第一位拋離成條街注定成大贏家？" [TVB's 13 TV drama ratings rankings this year: No. 1 is destined to be the big winner?] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
      The article discusses 13 TVB series.
    8. Lam, Seon-ging 林迅景 (2023-01-02). "盤點2022年15套TVB深宵劇　三代歌影視男神全部都搵到！" [Taking stock of 15 TVB late-night dramas in 2022, all three generations of singing, film and television male stars are available!] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
      The article discusses 15 TVB series.
    9. Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2022-01-21). "青春不要臉｜80年代最經典十部TVB劇集　絕對係香港輝煌的一頁" [Freedom Memories｜The ten most classic TVB dramas of the 1980s, definitely a glorious page in Hong Kong] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
      The article discusses 10 TVB series.
    10. Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2022-05-23). "TVB近年劇集最高收視十大排行榜　佘詩曼絕對係收視福星" [Top 10 TVB drama series with the highest ratings in recent years Charmaine Sheh is definitely a lucky star in the ratings] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
      The article discusses 10 TVB series.
    11. Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2022-05-20). "TVB歷史最低收視十套劇集排行榜　今年未完但已經有四套入圍" [Ranking of the top ten TVB dramas with the lowest ratings in TVB history. This year has not been completed but four dramas have already been shortlisted.] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
      The article discusses 10 TVB series.
    12. Lam, Seon-ging 林迅景 (2022-03-26). "網民票選TVB十大冷門劇　蒼海遺珠勁多一線演員精彩過新劇" [Netizens voted TVB's top ten unpopular dramas. The Pearl of the Blue Sea has many A-list actors and actresses in the new drama.] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
      The article discusses 10 TVB series.
    13. Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2021-05-21). "娛樂即時娛樂重溫20年前TVB劇集如何鼎盛　有六部劇集收視衝過40點！" [Entertainment Instant Entertainment revisits the heyday of TVB dramas 20 years ago. Six dramas have ratings exceeding 40 points!] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
      The article discusses several TVB series.
    14. Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2022-11-10). "網民嚴選今年TVB最好睇十套劇集《美麗戰場》愈鬧愈鍾意？" [Netizens carefully selected the ten best TVB dramas to watch this year. The more popular "The Beauty of War" is, the more you like it?] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
      The article discusses 10 TVB series.
    15. Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2017-10-29). "【台慶50周年】回顧TVB紮根香港50年　細數十大最出色「神劇」" [[Station's 50th Anniversary] Looking back at TVB's 50 years of roots in Hong Kong and breaking down the top ten most outstanding "divine dramas"] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
      The article discusses 10 TVB series.
    16. Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2020-10-05). "TVB近十年最高收視10套劇集　最高一套基本上唔會再打破" [TVB's 10 highest-rated drama series in the past ten years, the highest-rated series will basically never break again] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
      The article discusses 10 TVB series.
    17. "【TVB古裝劇】網民嚴選30大TVB古裝劇　《金枝慾孽》+《大冬瓜》同上榜" [[TVB Costume Drama] Netizens carefully selected the top 30 TVB costume dramas. "War and Beauty" + "The Winter Melon Tale" are also on the list.]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2022-05-10. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
      The article discusses 30 TVB series.
    18. "TVB經典影劇深夜接力重播　觀眾投票選最想睇經典劇集" [TVB late-night relay reruns of classic movies and dramas, viewers vote for the classic dramas they most want to watch]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2022-10-14. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
      The article discusses several TVB series.
    19. "【萬千星2020】盤點TVB於2020年五大最高收視劇集 　《法證IV》奪冠《使徒3》未入五大" [[TVB Anniversary Awards 2020] Taking stock of TVB's top five most-watched dramas in 2020. "Forensic Heroes IV" won the championship and "Line Walker: Bull Fight" did not enter the top five.]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2021-01-01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
      The article discusses five TVB series.
    20. Lo, Chi-wang 羅志宏 (2023-12-29). "細數2023年TVB劇集最高平均收視排行榜！僅得呢三部重頭劇 ..." [Break down the ranking of the highest average ratings of TVB dramas in 2023! Only three major dramas scored more than 20 points]. U Lifestyle [zh] (in Chinese). Hong Kong Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
      The article discusses eight TVB series.



    WP:NOTTVGUIDE

    WP:NOTTVGUIDE says:

    Electronic program guides. An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable."

    These articles do not contain "upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks". They contain "historically significant program lists and schedules" as shown through the coverage in academic and media sources.



    "Simple listings"

    WP:NOTDIRECTORY says:

    Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated. See WP:LISTCRITERIA for more information.

    WP:LISTCRITERIA says: "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources."
    The membership criteria of these lists is "unambiguous" and "objective" as membership is based on which TVB dramas were broadcast. The membership criteria is "supported by reliable sources" because TVB series have been discussed in academic and media sources.
    WP:LISTCRITERIA further says, "As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence."
    A topic that has been covered by academic and media sources meets the "encyclopedic and topical relevance" requirement.



    Multi-page list articles
    Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Titles links to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists)#Long (split) list naming recommendations, which discusses the conventions for "splitting a long list into multiple sub-articles". The long list here is "List of TVB series", while the sub-articles are "List of TVB dramas in 2022", "List of TVB dramas in 2023", etc.
    The guideline gives the example, "For example, TV show season lists are named in the form "Show title (season 1)", although the present guideline would have preferred "Show title: season 1" (the use of colons in the titles of works to indicate a subtitle, as in Star Trek: The Next Generation, is a likely reason for this variance)."
    The split by year is similar here. The split by year is a valid spinout to ensure the main list does not get too long.

    General notability guideline

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
    Cunard (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I vote to keep the TVB dramas article back in and I do agree with Cunard and vote no on tha article of deletion nomination and I do not see the problem. The certain person of October 2019 user need to stop incriminate with nomination for example in the past and look the title topic "Lots of deletions related to NOTDIR"; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR. I recommended to make speedy keep all, speedy close with closing all article of deletion nomination discussion. When the certain person is semi-retired "this user is no longer very active on Wikipedia" by using WP:BREAK already as now it means stop editing on Wikipedia and I do not see the certain person is taking semi-retired plan when the certain person is not taking a WP:BREAK for semi-retired then don't marked as semi-retired. If the certain person is already marked on semi-retired plan "user is no longer very active on Wikipedia" which means stop create edits without doing anything for search and change edits on Wikipedia.
  • Reply I'm very active on AfD, other areas not very much at all = semi retired.  // Timothy :: talk  17:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Looks like I should have nom'd them individually, I have no objection to the group nom being closed so I can nom them individually. No way these pass NLIST, and do meet WWIN NOTDIRECTORY.  // Timothy :: talk  16:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Harper (journalist)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

O

  • Delete Promotional; no sourcing for notability. Llajwa (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RegalZ8790 (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lunathi Mdatyulwa[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leven distillery[edit]

Leven distillery (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 doesn't seem like this distillery is independently notable, either delete or (preferably) redirect to Diageo. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as has reliable independent news coverage sources John baost (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability established, sufficient news articles and a lot of sources out there to expand article too. Coldupnorth (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there are good reliable sources to cover the subject properly. --2A01:E0A:375:3810:B82B:91C2:DC5C:A05F (talk) 16:41, 2 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 would suggest Thittuvilai's status addressed before this returns to AfD given its viability as a potential target Star Mississippi 00:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marthal[edit]

Marthal (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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion surrounding this article's subject's relationship with Thittuvilai would be helpful in determining whether there's a suitable ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge? You can find it on Google maps. It does seem to now be a neighbourhood of Thittuvilai. You can also spot most of the mentioned landmarks. Most of the article are things that are nearby, which is just as relevant to the larger town. - SimonP (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a neighbourhood of Thittuvilai. And Thittuvilai is not a town. Neither this article nor your merge target are a village or a town, and both articles are misleading. The town here is Boothapandi (also spelled Bhuthapandy and Boothapandy), which is a town panchayat of Kanyakumari district according to the Census of India. It is not a panchayat union of villages, but a single statutory town. The Census divides it into 15 wards. The nominator is quite right. This whole thing is some counter-factual, perhaps nostalgic, wishful thinking from 2007. Uncle G (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thittuvilai is very obviously a distinct settlement and is recognised as such, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Per WP:GEOLAND, Thittuvilai very clearly qualifies for an article (as a "populated, legally recognized place") even if Marthal doesn't. We also have to remember that if these settlements were ever recognised in their history then they also qualify per GEOLAND; it doesn't just apply to the present day. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your statement is contradicted by the Census of India. It's authoritative. You are not, nor is your bare assertion supported by anything at all. The place where this is is Boothapandi, and it is divided into wards, not villages. There is no legal recognition for either of these claimed villages. Uncle G (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • And I assume you've gone back through all the previous censuses and other documents to check whether these clearly separate settlements have ever been acknowledged as villages have you? Because, as I have pointed out, notability is not temporary. If they were ever accepted as villages then they meet WP:GEOLAND. And I'd be extremely surprised if they weren't. In fact, I'd be extremely surprised if they weren't now, despite what your beloved Census of India may say. Because I know from my own country that just because a village or hamlet may not today be a parish in its own right does not mean it never was or that it isn't still a recognised settlement within another parish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • leaning delete It appears that Marthal is a something, but at this point all of us appear to be just reading maps. Right now the only verifiable and non-trivial information in the article is the names of the two churches, which I can (if I believe it) get from GMaps, but while the river encircling the place provides a natural division, it doesn't mean the humans respected that. It could be part of Thittuvilai, or maybe not; it could be part of something larger. We need sourcing. Meanwhile, I could justifiably delete every line of the article for lack of same.

    More and more I'm finding WP:TNT to be the solution to articles like this. If someone comes along with decent sourcing that characterizes the place clearly, and recreates the article with citations, nobody is going to move to delete it. Mangoe (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I and the nominator are the only ones not reading maps, I think. I'm reading the Census of India, which I checked to check out the nominator's claim. And xe's right. The town where this supposed village is, that occupies the very space pointed to, and its 15 wards are on page 296 of that part of the Census, which covers Kanyakumari district. There are no villages inside town panchayats. There is no village of Thittuvilai. There is no village of Marthal. Here's another list of the 95 panchayat villages in Kanyakumari. No Thittuvilai nor Marthal there. The map-readers going on about legal recognition are looking at a place that is legally recognized as Boothapandi TP. Uncle G (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a placed called "Thittuvilai" in Kanyakumari district. [1] The heading on [2] reads "Tamil Nadu Government Cooperative Department, Kanyakumari District, Name of the Society : Y.61 Thetuvilai Primary Agriculture Cooperative Credit Society, Beneficiaries Eligible for Tamil Nadu Government Loan Waiver Scheme 2021". Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to Thittuvilai. A settlement not being listed in the latest census is not per se a reason for deletion and does not necessarily imply a named settlement has no legal recognition at the date of the latest census nor in prior censuses. Because a settlement's local government is within a separately named place shouldn't be interpreted that the named settlement doesn't exist. Reliable maps can be used for verification, but not notability. Thittuvilai is the village used for this survey [3] and mentioned, if not more here:[4] and in many other books, so could likely pass the coverage requirements of the GNG. Haven't found anything of note on Marthal though and so may not pass the GNG or have presumed notability. For this reason a redirect/merge to the adjoining settlement of Thittuvilai may be the best solution — at least the name Marthal is included as part of the name for the churches etc so is a valid search term. Rupples (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given how readily Google et al scrape WP geo material for use in maps and other resources, an article on a topic where the only sources seem to be online maps is likely either already circularly-referenced or in danger of solidifying inaccurate/misinterpreted info on the internet.
JoelleJay (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Online maps are not the only sources. Middle Marthal and South Marthal are the names of part of Ward No. 1 within Boothapandi Town Panchayat per the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette (page 164).[5] (Couldn't gain access to this doc earlier so only able to put it up now). This Google Street View image shows the school with the name Marthal appended.[6] The image reference link includes coordinates. I take it that the Street View coordinates are accurate. The school is listed in this issue of the Government Gazette [7] at page 197, entry no.4 with the place name Marthal. Other schools on the page also have their place names noted. Rupples (talk) 11:50, 1 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libya–Mauritania relations[edit]

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

No sourcing, and no indication that sourcing exists establishing significant information about their relations but creator prefers mainspace so we're here. Star Mississippi 14:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • One leader visiting/helping a country does not speak to broader relations, which are not addressed in any sourcing that I found. I could have made my nom more clear but no indication that sourcing exists came from my BEFORE. Star Mississippi 15:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are two quotes from a scholarly article in 2001: "For example, when oil revenues started to fall in 1985, Libya expelled or laid off more than 100,000 foreign workers from Mali, Mauritania, and Nigeria." "For example, in November 1995, in response to Mauritania's decision to recognize Israel, Libya recalled its ambassador and announced that it was severing all economic assistance to the country and 'dispensing' with Mauritanian workers in Libya." [1] The content here clearly demonstrates extensive economic and political ties. =Executive-level state visits, high-profile payoffs, extraditing and harbouring leaders: this is the stuff of international relations, all of which are demonstrated in the previous sources you dismissed.--User:Namiba 15:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance of this being added to the article? Geschichte (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Huliaras, Asteris. "Qadhafi's comeback: Libya and sub‐Saharan Africa in the 1990s." African Affairs 100, no. 398 (2001): 5-25.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/Rational 14:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep based on sources found by Namiba. LibStar (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, but as the article currently stands, there's barely anything there and no assertion of notability. Little more than a dicdef. Thanks to Namiba for finding a few sources, but even if this info was incorporated into the article, all we would have is WP:SYN, in violation of WP:NOR. Until secondary sources have addressed this topic directly and in detail, we shouldn't have an article about it. Yilloslime (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What original research are you referring to? Incorporating information from sources is not original research. It is the basis of an encyclopedia.--User:Namiba 04:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have semi'ed this to stop the socking. If this is seen as too involved as Nom, feel free to revert me. Star Mississippi 19:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the article consists entirely of “these two countries have relations. There’s no there there. Llajwa (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The two are both founding members of the five-member Arab-Maghreb Union, so I was somewhat surprised to see this. There is significant scholarly coverage of Libyan-Mauritanian relations. Such coverage includes a whole section on the bilateral relations between the two in The changing interactions between Libya and the Maghreb: bilateral versus multilateral engagement, which covers the history of bilateral relations between the two in a fairly direct way. There is also coverage in a paragraph on page 37 of Libya and the West: Headlong into Confrontation?, in addition to the sources put forward by Namibia. There was also the whole affair when Libya recognized an ousted President as head-of-state of Mauritania (Reuters), when Libya attempted high-level diplomatic relations to resolve an internal Mauritanian crisis (Reuters), when Mauritania's President called for Qaddafi's ouster (AFP via Modern Ghana), and also the whole agreement to extradite a former Qaddafi spy chief (Libya Herald, Reuters, The Guardian.
    Much of the scholarly coverage in English appears to be on multilateral relations involving the two, but the bilateral relations nonetheless are real and appear to have significant coverage from multiple independent RS. As always, WP:NEXIST notes that Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article (emphasis mine). And, such sources do exist, so the current state of sourcing of the article (as alluded to by Llajwa above) is irrelevant to the question of notability. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:52, 3 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. When more weight is given to the views that rely on P&G, consensus leans towards Delete, even when ignoring the fact that the current article is tainted by its COI author. However, due to the rapid flow of news about this evolving company, notability can be tested again with a newly-written article in three months. Owen× ☎ 00:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GoTo (Israeli company)[edit]

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

Unremarkable car hire business. TheLongTone (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • TheLongTone. Why would this company be unremarkable? Did you note that there are many RS in the references? gidonb (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Notable" does not mean "Remarkable". The citations seem to indicate significant coverage by major reliable sources at a national scope over a significant duration of time, and it is a publicly traded company which is very likely to be notable, per WP:LISTED. Marokwitz (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand the point behind this nomination. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by NCORP and as a "remarkable" car hire business. gidonb (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails NCORP: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Take out the primary sources and the listings and you're left with a few secondary sources, some of which are trivial mentions that seem to be little more than regurgitated press releases. Oh look, smiling people holding social media hashtag signs in front of their product... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Yeah, a creative marketing effort, but sources are there. TLA (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The article was written by me. This is an article about an important public company traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. I have written other articles about companies as well Three were draftified - Draft:D-ID (company) - Draft:Perplexity.ai - Draft:Holmes Place - and now we're discussing the deletion of this one. I understand there may be concerns that I have a motive to promote certain companies. However I am contributing in good faith as an educator simply seeking to share knowledge on new technologies in my spare time. My goal is to continue writing more articles for Wikipedia when I can. I hope that through my sustained contributions it will become evident that my intentions are positive. to add value to this collaborative resource. Please know I aim to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and improve as a contributor. I believe this article and others I write have a place here.Galamore (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article does not look overly promotional in my view. In general, publicly traded companies are very likely to be notable per WP:LIST. Specifically I think that Holmes Place Group is a notable company (publicly traded, international business, 40+ year history), but you should remove the citations to youtube , instagram and the company website, and add citations for additional WP:RS that cover the company history in depth such as [8]. I'm also pinging @Ratnahastin: to add their thoughts. Marokwitz (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Galamore's post here seems to have been written by a large language model. jp×g🗯️ 03:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you tell? Marokwitz (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Spam article about a non-notable company written by an undisclosed paid editor. The coverage seems to consist of passing mentions in WP:MILL sources. jp×g🗯️ 03:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: After reviewing this user's contributions I have blocked them as an undisclosed paid editor. jp×g🗯️ 04:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article is written in a highly promotional manner, and is based on the sourcing that looks like a lot of regurgitated press releases. If decent sourcing can be found, I guess this could be re-written from scratch, but as it stands notability has not been established and WP:TNT would apply. Girth Summit (blether) 11:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TLA. Eladkarmel (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Marokwitz, TLA and others. S5A-0043Talk 01:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the sources are in a language I don't speak, but they're clearly either based on company PR or routine finance coverage. Googling for sources hampered by a German company which also used to be known by the same name. Every revision of the article tainted by COI. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and the sources I can find all rely on company PR. HighKing++ 21:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A company listed on a national stock exchange will have sufficient sourcing, which this article seems to have. Per WP:LISTED, "However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the NYSE and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange in the same class is somewhat of a stretch, I think. NYSE is two orders of magnitude larger. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which sources do you see as meeting GNG/WP:NCORP?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete UPE promotional garbage. The only source that might have any possibility of meeting NCORP (source 5) provides a 403 Forbidden error. Jumpytoo Talk 21:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source 5 is working for me, [9] . I disagree with your assessment, the Hebrew sources meet WP:SIGCOV Marokwitz (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which Hebrew sources? Also, the TechCrunch reference relies *entirely* on information provided by the company - here's another source dated the same day which uses the same info. Fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 16:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I made a typo, I meant source 7 was the one I could not access Jumpytoo Talk 20:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 7 works, it is an article on one of Israel's top financial newspapers TheMarker with the following subtitle (AI translated): "Car to Go is a thriving business that lives on public funds, despite its efficiency being in great doubt for many years. After establishing the car-sharing project, the three founders encountered difficulties. To cope with the mounting debts, a new CEO was brought in who proposed an idea: instead of financing operational costs, connect to government and local authority budgets." Marokwitz (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional; no sourcing for notability. Llajwa (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm afraid the editor does themselves no favors. Delete the page, let the dust settle and if in the future, someone else wants to create the page, go for it. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. It may not be G5 eligible, but no one has voiced support of retaining it. Star Mississippi 01:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian campaign against the Eldiguzids[edit]

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

This article was created in October 2023 by CU blocked sockpuppet Nugoooo.[10] The original creation of the article dates back to 2018 by a blocked user named Georgiano, but it was deleted in 2020 due to various violations of core policies, including instances of copyright infringement, among other issues[11]-[12]

Following a hiatus of 3 years, the article now reappears on Wikipedia, under the watchful eye of another batch of WP:NOTHERE accounts and IPs. Subsequent edits to the article of significance are obvious IP socks linked to the original sockmaster, as well as new sockpuppets (such as user:Caucasian127). Strangely, the prevalence of sock and meatpuppetry did not suffice as a reason to accept the CSD 5 request.[13]

Similar to its previous iteration, the article is marred by violations of Wikipedia's policies on original research (WP:OR), as well as those on verifiability (WP:VER) and reliable sourcing (WP:RS). There is also a likelihood of copyright violations. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: G5 was declined by Robertsky due to there being "substantial edits by other editors". Relisting to establish consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Maroof Gullestani[edit]

Abdul Maroof Gullestani (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 wasn't able to find any evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC #5, which would be the minimum requirement. This included a search in his native language (عبدالمعروف گلستانی). The best that I could find was a single passing mention in Dawn. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was ‎speedy delete under criterion A7. No assertions of significance or importance are made. —C.Fred (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arafat Hassan Sohan[edit]

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

No indication of any notability, declined as a draft, but moved to main space by article's subject, clearly fails every flavour of WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EnergyCS[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and the general notability guidelines. The only dedicated coverage this company ever received by reliable sources was about its 2011 acquisition by the now-defunct Coda Automotive. (NCORP specifically mentions acquisitions an example of trivial coverage). Other than that, the company received only passing mentions by news articles about the electric vehicle industry in the 2000s. Tserton (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown football, pre–1890[edit]

Georgetown football, pre–1890 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:NSEASONS overall as these seasons lack the WP:SIGCOV and many of them are not even recognized by the school. Per WP:NOPAGE, this content can be trimmed down and be found at Georgetown football. Let'srun (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Washington, D.C.. Let'srun (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the hell... NSEASONS states that seasons can be grouped if lacking individual notability - I do, as an ATD for the 1881 season article (which you seem to really not like for some reason), this article on the first 16 years of Georgetown football - and within minutes of finishing you AFD it. I can add the next five seasons to this if it helps, but why are you now so much against merger articles when they're created by me, when you've done the exact same before for arguably less notable groupings (DelState)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Let'srun: How many seasons do you think need to be added for this to be notable? Through 1894? Through 1900? More? I will tell you this, though: I oppose in the strongest possible terms a "trim-down to Georgetown football", as that would just either (a) result in a load of WP:UNDUE content or (b) result in near-total erasing the first 16 years of the team's history, which need to be mentioned somewhere at Wikipedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, per Cbl62 and Jweiss. This is a valid split, something Let'srun has been supportive of in the past when others have done such actions (even doing it himself). Futhermore, his lack of a reply to my above comment (how many seasons would equal notability) while actively editing elsewhere indicates that this is simply an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination / nomination due to it being my work. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do not think WP:NOPAGE applies here as the nominator suggests, as Georgetown Hoyas football is not an appropriate WP:ATD for this type of merge. More reasonable would be expanding the scope of this page to 1894, as Category:Georgetown Hoyas football seasons indicates that was the last season prior to a rebranding. Curbon7 (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a legitimate combined article on the early years of a notable football program. Combining multiple years in this fashion is valid per WP:NSEASONS ("In cases in which the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article."). Debates as to which years should be included or excluded is a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE that should be discussed first at the article's talk page. However, such a disagreemen is not a proper basis IMO for taking the article to AfD within minutes of creation (and without any discussion or dispute resolution), as was done here. Cbl62 (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cbl62. Honestly, AFD needs to be snow closed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cbl62. -- ZooBlazer 01:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the best way to present this information - you could split any season out and it would be only marginally notable but that's covered by NSEASON and it's not like it's poorly sourced. SportingFlyer T·C 18:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Small Planet Airlines. History is preserved should folks wish to enact a merger Star Mississippi 01:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Small Planet Airlines (Cambodia)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 18:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Small Planet Airlines as a premature WP:SPINOFF, where the content cannot be safely merged. This is another example of how excessive fragmentation harms the upkeep and access to information, resulting in a bad user experience. I would like to widen the debate and also suggest the following:
Small Planet Airlines (disambiguation) – delete
Small Planet Airlines (Germany) – redirect to Small Planet Airlines
Small Planet Airlines (Italy) – redirect to Small Planet Airlines
Small Planet Airlines (Poland) – redirect to Small Planet Airlines
The Italy and Cambodia operations were tiny. Just two airplanes. Poland and Germany were somewhat larger yet also these articles remained underdeveloped. The airlines shared one ownership and name. After concentrating on one article, hopefully, more information we will be brought to the parent, and its text will be improved. That's an urgent need as some of the text implies 6 years later that the company is still active and the undisclosed paid warning doesn't help build trust either. gidonb (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: I never saw them. Kudos for finding them. scope_creepTalk 19:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, also for concentrating on unnecessary SPINOFFs! Excessive SPINOFFs make information management a pain and the user experience hellish! gidonb (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its nothing something I've thought about but will in the future. I think it is really important. scope_creepTalk 12:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. Also these have great options for ATDs: merge and redirect. gidonb (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient, especially with respect to the veracity of the named chair role. AB if you want this in draft, just ping me. Star Mississippi 01:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart N. Brotman[edit]

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

The article was created by Gbrotman (talk · contribs) in 2009, so there is likely COI. The article is heavily promotional in tone, and lacks citations to reliable sources that would indicate a WP:GNG pass. Looking on scholar [14], I'm just not seeing enough citations to pass WP:PROF. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my edit summary, I meant WP:NPROF) (not WP:NLIST), specifically criterion 5:
  • "The person has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research…"
Brotman has held these professorships:
  • "Fulbright-Nokia Distinguished Chair in Information and Communications Technologies in the Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Social Research /Media and Communication Studies, at the University of Helsinki"
  • "Alvin and Sally Beaman Professor of Journalism and Media Law, Enterprise, and Leadership at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville"
  • "From 2016-2022, he served as the inaugural Howard Distinguished Endowed Professor of Media Management and Law."
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Investigate the veracity of some of this. I've stricken my "keep" for now. I started pruning some of the biography and noted much of it relied on Brotman himself. I also noted he appeared to be in many places at once, meaning perhaps a visiting appointment or fellowship was either just a driveby lecture or maybe some of this stuff is made up.
My editing was confined to some quick pruning; I did not dive into the references. Also, there's lots more pruning to do. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, actually looking at that "Fulbright-Nokia Distinguished Chair" reveals that it isn't an appointment at all in the sense NPROF means. It's a short term visiting scholar post (3-9 months) that just has a grandiose title attached to it. Especially with the vast increase in title inflation -- it's far easier to call someone a "Distinguished Endowed Professor" than to raise their pay -- we might want to revisit NPROF's criteria. Ravenswing 19:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Franklin[edit]

Warren Franklin (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 meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:PROD declined in the past, so ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/Rational 17:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English Jamaicans[edit]

AfDs for this article:
English Jamaicans (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)

Renominating this per @Liz's advice.

This should be deleted OR redirected to British Jamaicans. What little info is on here is likely already in that article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/Rational 17:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete The redirect is a problem because, as it stands, the two phrases mean reversed things: one is about people in the UK, and the other is about people in Jamaica. They aren't claimed to be synonyms, so we shouldn't make a redirect that says they are. And this article really says nothing about people of English descent in Jamaica, so it needs to go. Mangoe (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to British Jamaicans would be the best option. TH1980 (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mangoe is correct in stating that the term as currently used on Wikipedia isn't a subset of British Jamaicans. Going by a cursory search, it doesn't appear to be commonly used in that sense either, so it doesn't make sense to redirect there. ― novov (t c) 07:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing useful here. Will only cause confusion if redirected to British Jamaicans because, what about Jamaican Americans? They are also "English" I must say. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. At the moment, consensus here appears against both retention and a redirect. However if information is sourced and added, this can be re-created as a redirect at editors' discretion. Star Mississippi 20:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linwood, Iowa[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Linwood, Iowa (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)

Converted to a redirect to a township article which does not mention this spot, I've restored it so it can be deleted properly this time. It's the same story as before: we have no information about the spot except it appeared on an old map, which isn't good enough. There is no reason to redirect to the township because the latter's article has nothing to say about the spot, which is, after all, because we don't know anything about it except the location of a name on an old map. We need to stop this lazy solution for making these redirects as they do next to nothing for the reader; we need to just admit that there's not enough information for an article and delete it. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather pages may be redirected and links to them removed. I continue to appreciate your extensive efforts in tackling mass-created place articles, but there's not enough manpower to discuss each one of them. Even if not mentioned in the main article (sometimes perhaps it should be), leaving this record may be appropriate when there's at least some source on it, even if not enough for notability. Reywas92Talk 19:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects get AfDs closed because they satisfy the inclusionists, but the problem with these "redirect to the larger area" pages is that they are misleading. We shouldn't try to trap searches for places we cannot tell anything about: in this case, we don't even have evidence good enough to say that Linwood was a real place of any kind, as we've found far too many such dots on maps that were entirely spurious. And while it would be nice to delete these redirects directly, often enough the people in the redirect reviewing side force them to be pushed through AfD again anyway in order to get rid of them. I hate to "waste" time on this too, but if we didn't have these IMO bad AfD outcomes— or I could just stop caring about the matter at all, which is a state I keep getting driven to by the way some of these discussions go— less time would be wasted all around. Mangoe (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, as before. I've added a bit in the Summit Township article. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Mangoe. We already know these post offices are sometimes not located in towns or populated areas. Presence of a post ≠ populated place. Sometimes the post office is just somewhere in the middle of nowhere central to several communities, and provides shelter along the postal route. The claim is that nobody can find any info about the location. I agree with that, and the claim we don't need to redirect this to the township. What's the point in redirecting it anyway?James.folsom (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom..."shown on maps in 1905" is not the same thing as "unincorporated community", let alone notability per WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sad thing is how much that same logic is repeated here in Wikipedia. It's shown on the 1905 map because maps don't get magically updated immediately that post offices close. Surveys happen at intervals of several years, rather. And then some poorly researched WWW site turns that persistence of a dot on a map into a "ghost town of Iowa". Uncle G (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Readers looking for the railway station that served the mine of the Linwood Stone & Cement Company, later the Dewey Portland Cement Company, at Linwood, Iowa, would likely be mis-served by a redirect for a barely documented post office in the wrong county. Of the two Linwoods, the railway station and mine is the one that is in the history books, such as William John Petersen's The Story of Iowa: The Progress of an American State (Lewis, 1952). This should be a redlink until someone writes about the one of the two Linwoods that we have more than 1 sentence ("a discontinued postoffice") about to go on. Uncle G (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous AFD was closed as redirect in 2021 so why has this been restored? If deletion is desired it could be deleted at RFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because, I suspect, over the past few months RFD has consistently undone such redirects when nominated there and sent them to AFD, to be nominated for deletion there. It's an enormous amount of bureacracy and buck-passing for what are in the main false articles misrepresenting long-extinct post offices as if they were current towns/villages.

      This post office closed over 120 years ago in 1903 and it has been open farmland all along. We've been calling it an "unincorporated community" founded in 1905 for 7 of those years. Welcome to how maddeningly difficult it is to clean up the GNIS mess and the geographic lies that Wikipedia has been telling the world for years.

      Uncle G (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • When a bold merge/redirect occurs and that's contested yes but if there was a previous consensus at least at an AFD then they should be deleted at RFD. There has been some debate about what can be deleted at RFD but everyone seems to agree that article content redirected/merged at AFD can be deleted at RFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • And yet it doesn't happen in practice. We cycled through this with a bunch of "unincorporated communities" that were in fact housing estates in California in December, for example. Even though the will is there, the actual outcomes don't reflect it a significant fraction of the time. I can understand why the nominator perceives RFD as just a place that sends things back to AFD when push comes to shove. You can read Mangoe's own words above. See also Lena Park, Indiana (AfD discussion) for how much of a struggle it is to even get places that never happened fixed. This is the nominator's experience. Uncle G (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave as redirect: Surely we have better things to do than decide whether this should be a redirect or not exist; restoring the article just to have an AfD seems unnecessary to me. Its a plausible search term since it was at least once a post office. Kudos to Firsfron for adding a bit to the township article; credit also to Mangoe for indeed finding place name articles over time that should not exist. Also I am no Wikipedia parliamentarian but don't redirects get discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion?; I raise that point of order to also support my inclusionist vendettas. :)--Milowent • hasspoken 14:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "plausible search term" argument died about ten versions of Google and Bing search ago, never mind DuckDuckGo. Normal searching will find the thing where it is mentioned; after all, that's what we do to write the articles in the first place, or to find out that the information we have isn't any good. And that is exactly why this has come around: people keep wanting to create redirects so that people will come to read what we have to say about the thing even if we don't have an article, but we don't have anything accurate to say!
And as far as discussing redirects, it seems to be a coin toss as to whether RfD punts the discussion to here because the discussion is really about the article the redirect replaced. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is here before us now and it makes no sense to argue over whether it was brought here the right way. What is done is done. Plus, Uncle G made a damn good assessment of why it shouldn't be redirected. It shouldn't just get put back to a redirect because someone thought it was improperly done.James.folsom (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sounds like there is a good reason not to retain the redirect, and a good reason why sending this to RfD wouldn't be productive. We have no info beyond that this was named on a map, and it has no actual coverage at the redirect target, so it should be deleted.
JoelleJay (talk) 03:58, 1 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 20:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of races at the Nürburgring[edit]

List of races at the Nürburgring (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)

Do we need another list of winners when each articles about races taking place there have their own list, thus making this completely unnecessary. Unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT list that is only good for the most obsessive motorsport fans, also WP:LC and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Participated Countries Statistics in Mister International[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST, these statistics don't seem to have been the subject of much if any attention Fram (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Entertainment, and Events. Fram (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: agree that this is a lot of detailed stats for a beauty pageant, or any competition. To justify a table like this we'd need sources that discuss the numbers in detail, not just the winners.
Also note the same table appearing at Mister International. Could be deleted from there too, along with a few other tables. Are the raw stats the only available material about this topic from reliable sources? Wizmut (talk) 18:34, 19 January 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 14:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 16:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1904 Toledo Athletic Association football team[edit]

1904 Toledo Athletic Association football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 21:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhoj Raj Seth[edit]

Bhoj Raj Seth (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)

Selected publications are not indicative of an acceptable margin of h-index, fellowships do not seem to qualify under C3 of WP:NACADEMIC. Additionally, there is a discrepancy regarding the Eular Medal; it is claimed to have been awarded in 1958, but records suggest that it did not exist until 1993. nearlyevil665 14:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
  2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. Sources which were written by scholars addressed he won the Leonhard Euler Gold Medal in 1958.
  3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics). He was elected as a Fellow of Indian National Science Academy as well as Indian Academy of Sciences (1936) with well relaible sources. (See here)
  4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions: The subject was the pioneer vice chancellor of Dibrugarh University, a public university in 1966 which already qualifies notability.
  5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. According to the article, He was a professor of Engineering whose life spanned through mathematics and added impact to science. The article states; Seth was a lecturer of applied mathematics who taught in IIT Kharagpur and was considered a notable impact to that field in the 20th century (see it here
  6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. Already a Pioneer vice chancellor!
  7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.Already had publications on notable academic papers and books. Search Google and books to see more of his books, that's why the article bears, Selected publications. (See here)
  8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. The article again goes; He was the editor of Journal of Science and Engineering Research of the Indian Institute of Technology with a verifiable source. Otuọcha (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If we can indeed establish from a reliable source that he won the Leonhard Euler Gold Medal, would indeed satisfy C2. I am unclear what a "pioneer vice chancellor" is but if this is equivalent to being the president of a university, it would meet C6 as well. If this can be clarified by someone, it would be appreciated. Unfortunately I disagree with Otuọcha about his meeting the other criteria (for example the Journal of Science and Engineering Research of the Indian Institute of Technology is probably not a "major, well-established academic journal") but it would not matter, since meeting only one criterion of WP:NPROF is sufficient. Qflib (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In retrospect, subject may indeed meet C3 if he is a fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences. Qflib (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Vice Chancellor is equivalent to President. He's not in the right field for the ICA Euler medal that the article links to; this INSA obit says it was the Euler medal of the USSR Academy of Sciences (and he wasn't the only recipient of it that year, at least). Adam Sampson (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly believe C6 already passed him since it was correctly sources. For the award, was backed also with a reference from Google books, it obviously needs additional back up but from the website of a notable science academy, it was clearly written, so it's is reliable source. More researches need to be made on that award in general, cause I am seeing it went on defunct after the 1957 award till after ten years, could that be correct? Otuọcha (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But a journal or publication of a National society is also notable.... Otuọcha (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject passes C6 of WP:NPROF, which is sufficient. Article needs more details and others need corrections, but this is an argument for improving the page, not deleting it. Qflib (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angola–Peru relations[edit]

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

Article based on a number of primary sources. The relations lack elements that typically make notable relations such as embassies, state visits, significant trade or migration. The one bilateral agreement is extremely minor. LibStar (talk) 12:21, 19 January 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) 13:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not seeing anything that makes this relationship notable. Yilloslime (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ as it does not appear more discussion is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 20:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ju Ju Wilson[edit]

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

A gnews search yields 1 hit. Australian search engine trove comes up mainly with small 1 line mentions. Does not meet WP:ARTIST. Hardly any articles link to this. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - LibStar, I think there is a possibility that this Indigenous Australian elder artist is notable. She is in the collection of the National Gallery of Australia (added that info + citation to the article.) We need more than one notable collection to pass NARTIST, but I'm also finding a few hits on her work as a director. Not ready to !vote yet without deeper inquiry. Netherzone (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Also mentioned in this book [15] but it's a snippet view. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the National Gallery of Australia holdings and other sources (and as an author and television appearances). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion over sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus among established edtiors is clear Star Mississippi 20:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mileo[edit]

Mileo (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)

Aside from having been created by a WP:SPA which edits *only* in the field of Mileo's articles (and created Echo (Mileo song), Know You Better (Mileo song) and Worry (song), none of which met NSONG and which I've redirected now), there's no conferrance of notability here. Fails WP:NMUSIC - the only coverage I can find in a reliable source is the VG article about his song sparking some outrage. Rest of sources are just Facebook/WP:SELFPUB/interviews with the artist which are excluded under NMUSIC, and the closest in terms of chart notability is "Echo" which placed 202nd in Russia's charts, a far cry from notability. Any coverage he has received is because of his participation in Melodi Grand Prix 2024 (Norway's Eurovision pre-selection event), which brings WP:BLP1E into play, and even that has just been mentioning his name or song in articles about it, so doesn't meet sigcov. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 10:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: To me, this clearly seems like the SPA was made seemingly by Mileo himself to get himself a page, or it was done by a large fan of his. Does not meet notability requirements as mentioned above, and so no reason to have the page. Wikidaddy42 (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)— Wikidaddy42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Whether the creator of this page was originally an SPA or not is irrelevant, the article is clearly of a notable musician that has been in current media a lot especially recently. Margaretrox (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC) — Margaretrox (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You are also a SPA. Wikidaddy42 (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The editing history of this page isn't from just a few users but many who are aware of the subject. i'm concerned this user has a personal issue with the artist in question, the figure is publicly notable in Norway. Margaretrox (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
pre-Melodi Grand Prix sources:
[17]
[18] Skybly (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these are just articles in a local newspaper and do not confer notability. The COVID-19 one appears to be an interview, which is excluded by WP:NMUSIC per other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves. That leaves one local newspaper article, which is nowhere near enough to meet WP:NMUSIC. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if the issues are with the references on the page then just update the references, there are many sources https://www.nettavisen.no/5-95-1592809 the artist is still notable NorHux (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC) — NorHux (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
is refusing to acknowledge relevant and viable articles to the subject in this thread NorHux (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's one additional article which mentions the song as a participant in MGP, which falls under WP:BLP1E. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning a program the song appears on doesn't warrant a disregard of an article, the article's purpose is a debate on the controversy surrounding lyrics of a recent musical release, not a show it appears on. NorHux (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Scooby-Doo. Star Mississippi 19:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby Snacks[edit]

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

Couldn't find anything in-depth, 1 is the best source I could find. There were one or two sources about the name being used in the drug scene that could be given a sentence in the pop culture section of the main article. 2 (better source needed - no author information or related policies given) 3 QuietCicada - Talk 01:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Food and drink, Television, and Comics and animation. QuietCicada - Talk 01:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Scooby Snacks are not only an iconic part of the show but also part of a lot of merchandise. There is an article in the NZ Herald about "Scooby Snacks" accidentally being fed to children.[19] which was also reported on by the BBC.[20] There is also an article by the Daily Express about Scooby Snacks merchandise in B&M.[21] There is an article in The Sun about Scooby Snacks.[22] and an article about a copyright dispute involving the snacks.[23]
"Scooby snacks" is also used as a term outside of the show and was added to the Oxford English Dictionary[24] and was covered here.[25][26] The term is also used to refer to drugs, likely originating from the show.[27][28][29] The term was mentioned in the following paper.[30]
Here are some other sources which mention Scooby Snacks[31][32][33] GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some other sources I found with mention of Scooby Snacks: [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]
There is also this article which I cannot find the full version, if I can find it, I might post it here. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Scooby-Doo as a new section under merchandising. This section can include the mishaps with the dog treats. The other sources are mere WP:ROUTINE mentions. If a source exists of the snacks being illustriously detailed about their comparison to drugs, please ping me and I'll reconsider my !vote. Conyo14 (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Scooby-Doo, possibly in its own section. None of the sources appear to actually be substantial, or are talking about a real-life product (as opposed to the fictional snack this article is about). I am simply not seeing the standalone notability of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Scooby-Doo as indicated above, Bduke (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the article talks about the term and could easily talk about the real-life product (including the reliable, independent coverage). The question is if the topic is notable, not if the article is. Hobit (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge per above. Most of these are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and not enough for WP:SIGCOV. This is a small tangent about Scooby-Doo and can be mentioned at a parent article. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep sources provided by GoldenBootWizard276 are enough to get over WP:N. plus OED has an entry and WP:DICDEF isn't an issue. [49] is an academic publication that discusses these. I don't really see any way this doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While some sources are definitely trivial mentions, there are some of them do discuss the snacks at large as a form of commentary and outside coverage of them is obviously present. The academic sources listed alone make this article worth keeping as per WP:ACADEMIC and deleting it just because of the wonky sourcing at the moment directly conflicts with WP:DINC. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That academic article, fwiw, uses Scooby Doo’s famous devotion to his treats as a playful hook to introduce a legal argument about federal regulation of dog food - I’m not sure that it constitutes significant coverage of Scooby snacks for WP purposes.
    Llajwa (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Llajwa: I'm honestly confused by which reference you're referring to as there's various academic articles referenced as some of the links remain inaccessible for me. Regardless, let's use Reference 23 as an example of significant coverage. Scooby Snacks or at least some real-life variation are mentioned around 76 times across the article to demonstrate a greater point on the marketing of fictional characters within merchandise and other products. Notability isn't demonstrated by just reliable sources talking about the subject at large but also mentioning significance from topics that are outside of the original series' scope while also displaying secondary coverage. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Scooby-Doo per above. The vast majority of the multitude of links above are just a bunch of google hits, many of them being from unreliable sources, and many of them being the most trivial of mentions of the term (with some not even mentioning it at all that I can find). Looking through them to find the actual reliable sources, there still is not that extensive enough coverage that an independent page could really be supported, and per WP:NOPAGE, this would be better covered on the broader topic of the franchise for the greater amount of context covering that way would provide. All that can really be said, using the reliable sources here, are that they are a reoccurring plot device in the franchise, that there have been some real-life tie-in products named after them, and it has been used as slang for other things outside of the franchise. This is something that can easily be covered in a few sentences on the main article without the need for a split out article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject passes GNG I feel.★Trekker (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Rorshacma. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Sourcing has been shown to lack sufficient depth Star Mississippi 18:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joy e-bike[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH, Refs are routine coverage. scope_creepTalk 00:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - based on coverage meets GNG. Bikerose (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will go through the references this weekend, the first 14 anyway. scope_creepTalk 15:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Draftify None of the sources in the article nor ones I could find via Google provide NCORP coverage on the company. There were some reviews I found of the companies products that may or may not meet NCORP ([50] [51] [52]) that may make an article possible if it focused on the companies products but the article at this stage would need a fundamental rewrite to achieve that. If someone wants to do that, draftify, otherwise delete. Jumpytoo Talk 22:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are ample coverage on Google that talks about the subject, which meet the criteria set by WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS, and WP:CORPDEPTH. However, it seems that the sources provided by Jumpytoo are not used on the page.Wakukapu (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is a WP:SPA, probably from the company. scope_creepTalk 18:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets examine the articles references:

Not a single reference in the first two blocks of reference to pass WP:SIRS. They references are junk, which is what you expect from a brand-new startup. scope_creepTalk 18:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Premature as of now If it's as notable as claimed, it will get better references, satisfy WP:NCORP and then can be recreated. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:19, 2 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 12:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skimmer (band)[edit]

Skimmer (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)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG, or find a good WP:ATD. Possible redirect to List of Peel sessions, but not sure if that is helpful. Boleyn (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P

  • Delete Promo, no claim to notability Llajwa (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Maio Mackay[edit]

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

This article has had issues for many years. It was written by a sockpuppet account (more accurately a group of them). All articles linking to this page were also created by those accounts or are previous discussions of the issues regarding this page. The subject of the article does not meet verifiability. The creation of this article by the subject is also a violation of WP:COI. The subject is not notable; the only web results yielded by a search are local announcements of events and facebook pages, which were originally used as sources in this article. Other, more recent sources are all reviews and brief descriptions which do not meet reliability guidelines. Am nominating for AfD after PROD nomination from other users last year, as article breaches wiki guidelines on notability and biography of a living persons. This is a self-created profile. Ilovedalone (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, PROD'd several times so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. JM (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Mellody[edit]

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

WP:BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Potentially passes WP:NAUTHOR but can't find reviews. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 10:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This in Texas Monthly [67] and two book reviews in Publishers Weekly [68]. First isn't enough for GNG or BLP, 2nd isn't enough for AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe the clinic has notability - she does not seem to meet requirements. She is an author and was involved in a semi-public scandal, but does not have significant coverage. Llajwa (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of countries by forest area in accordance with the prior AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by forest area (percentage). Since the prior AfD closed as a merge, and nobody is requesting anything other than a merge, I don't believe this AfD needs to remain open. If the data needs to be updated, please update it on List of countries by forest area by normal editing.‎. Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by forest area (percentage)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of countries by forest area (percentage) (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)

My 2022 proposal to delete was closed as “merge” but nobody did the merge Chidgk1 (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ because there is no argument for deletion made outside the nom. However, this does not preclude a merger discussion, which can continue outside of this discussion. Star Mississippi 18:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Musica a Palazzo[edit]

Musica a Palazzo (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 meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the suggested additional sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Palazzo Barbarigo Minotto. Notability concern aside, the article has a promotional tone, most obviously in the Reviews section. For this reason, the entry on the Italian-language Wikipedia was speedily-deleted two months after the English-language page was created, and has not been recreated. Though it sounds like the article might meet WP:GNG by its coverage in reviews, a subheading in Palazzo Barbarigo Minotto, appropriate because the group rents a floor of this building, may be sufficient and prevent a WP:PERMASTUB. Finally, let's not overlook that the group's name is, literally, music in the palace. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 18:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Battle of Yedaya[edit]

2nd Battle of Yedaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NEVENT. Minorincident, No sources found showing this has WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  19:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No assumptions were made on my page, I added secondary sources AND primary sources, none contradicts the other neither what I wrote, I can't seem to see my mistake so I asked other wikipedia editors to review my recent articles, still cant pinpoint a single mistake, recently all my articles I put hard work in were reported for deletion by SocialWave, please explain yourself in more detail Yubudirsi (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as if this closes as Soft Delete, it is likely to get immediately restored. Remember, editor participants, to BOLD your "vote" of what you are arguing should occur with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with all these battle articles is that while they are verifiable, they are not notable, because we do not have multiple independent sources discussing them in depth. Mccapra (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The sources are not sufficient for a stand alone article. There isn't much in detail about the battle then a sentence or two. Socialwave597 (talk) 06:13, 1 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lymm Baptist Church[edit]

Lymm Baptist Church (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. (Contested WP:PROD) WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 19:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: the chapel is mentioned in the Buildings of England: Cheshire volume, but not substantially: Baptist Church, Higher Lane. Built in 1850. Of stone, with nice Decorated Gothic window tracery. The attached school was added in 1851 and extended a year later. The earlier part has two big gables, the latter gabled dormers and windows with cusped heads. (p.447) I suspect that won't be enough, even alongside the much more substantial piece in Stell. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 16:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I see this news story, which provides RS SIGCOV but does not otherwise build towards GNG due to it being local coverage. This is a pretty neat source with SIGCOV, but it's partially by a congregant and was published by the denomination that the church is affiliated with. A similar problem exists with this. Another local news story can be seen here. There are two images on a local history website showing that the congregation has been around a while, but add nothing towards GNG. This is a missionary org associated with the parish that against adds nothing towards GNG. Ditto for this. This is RS but is local and just says they raised funds for refugees of the war in Ukraine. All in all, the church is real and likely of at least some local historical note, given what Hassocks5489 turned up. Since we can verify it with one independent source and it seems to be a focal point for that region's Baptists, I say it can be considered weakly notable outside of the GNG standard. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, this book only covered the CoE parish in town, so I suppose it's unlikely the building is of architectural interest. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not sure I follow along with the conclusion that the links above show it is a focal point for Baptists in the region. It is a meeting point for sure, by nature of being a church, and presumably the focal point for Baptists in that town. But Lymm itself is just over a half-hour drive from both Manchester and Liverpool, which are presumably host to much more of a true focal point for Baptists in the region, unless we define region very narrowly. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 21:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (With regret) Delete -- There is nothing to indicate this is not a typical local church, no different from many we routinely delete. Personally, I would like to keep many of them, but that is contrary to the consensus. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the numerous reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion. Note that local coverage is permissible for historic buildings, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to add my source assessment table, including the sources highlighted by Pbritti.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Nonconformist Chapels and Meeting-houses in the North of England Yes Yes Yes Per Hassocks5489 ✔ Yes
Buildings of England: Cheshire Yes Yes No Per full entry provided above by Hassocks5489 ✘ No
Is this the busiest building in Lymm?, Warrington Worldwide Yes Yes No Short, very locally oriented article about weekly activities at the church, like painting and a gardening club — arguably not Sigcov in line with WP:AUD ✘ No
Story 81 - Mission on your doorstep, Baptists Together No Non-news website of the Baptist denomination Lymm BC belongs to, based on interview with Lymm BC leader Yes Yes ✘ No
Justice flows in the North West, Baptists Together No See above Yes Notably, per The Baptist Times, the paper was apparently involved in a Pakistani fake news controversy, but that is not relevant for Baptist issues ? I would argue this very short article is more about the North Western Baptist Association annual forum (Lymm BC is just mentioned as the place the conference was located at) ✘ No
OSCAR No Self-written description hosted on another website. No ✘ No
Lymm.uk Ukraine Fund Listing ? May be similar listing as above No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 03:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUD which is part of WP:NCORP does not apply to churches as shown at WP:NCHURCH which states that a church can pass WP:GNG instead of NCORP so that local sources are acceptable for WP:GNG so your chart incorrectly excludes at least 1 local source, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This seems like a borderline case that might benefit from a little more time. I'd like to say how impressive all of your detective work is, looking hard for sources that might establish GNG even when you admit that it might fall short. I wish more AFDs had this level of investigation done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The pdf of the historical article "A Brief History..." in the footnotes gets us a long ways towards satisfaction of GNG. The extreme weakness of our WP article makes it difficult to defend as an encyclopedic topic, but there is a legitimate historical article there if someone takes time to research and write it. Carrite (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment from me I've reviewed the historical article linked by Carrite above. I am satisfied that it is a decent example of its type (I can say from experience, having read (literally) thousands of church and chapel histories of wildly varying quality), and in conjunction with the sources I have there should be enough to "Keep" this. I will set about improving the article now and will report back here when I have got as far as I can. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prob Delete - I think the history of this chapel is interesting, but for me that's not enough for a Wikipedia article. I say this as someone who is interested in British nonconformist chapels and who has delved into 100 year old newspaper archives to read about them. For me the issues are a) the architecture is nothing special for the era b) there are hundreds of similar chapels across the UK (for example in my Welsh village there were 8 similar chapels of different denominations of which 4 are still standing, all of which have a history documented in newspapers and mentioned in local church history books) and there's not much which is unique about this one c) there's an unwarranted importance given to small religious congregations which would not be deemed notable in other circumstances. For me, I think there's a line and a small congregation in a building that only dates back to the 1860s of a kind that is frequently seen across the country is not really notable - even if there is a newspaper trail of articles about fetes, preachers and prizegiving ceremonies. JMWt (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep article has sufficient sources now and I would argue that churches are often notable as public buildings that are significant to their community even though I'm not religious. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment from me: If consensus goes with deletion in the end here, please could it instead be moved to my Userspace instead so I can seek other sources: I know various people who are likely to have access to physical/published sources, but would need to ask around. Ta. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Sourcing isn't great, but is over the GNG line IMO. SportingFlyer T·C 15:47, 3 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. The sole argument for retention appears to be about a different school. Star Mississippi 18:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Bassel High School for Outstanding Students[edit]

Al-Bassel High School for Outstanding Students (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 to meet wikipedia notability guidelines. I have not found any source for the info in the article and the website listed doesn't work Quick-ease2020 (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per response to my comment above. Lorstaking (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also recommend deleting Al Basil High School for Superiors which talks about a similar school but in a different city. It has the same issues with notability 2620:6E:6000:3100:FC1E:F8AA:F362:87DB (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Lorstaking fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We've got plenty of coverage of the school and the activities associated with it. This includes a SANA piece from about a month ago, another number of stories from 2023 about the school's academic performance, more 2023 coverage from SANA, 2022 coverage from al-Binaa, a full-length piece about the school from Al-Ouruba, and some more mundane coverage of solar power and the school. In short, I think that we have multiple independent sources that are reliable (as far as covering an elite high school is concerned), and as such this school passes WP:NSCHOOL via the WP:GNG. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All the articles you linked talk about another school. They are talking about "First Al-Bassel school" in Homs. The wiki article in question is specifically about the Aleppo one.
    They are both in same series of school: "مدارس المتفوقين" or "schools for outstanding students" and identically named(after the president's brother). But they are completely different schools.
    For example: Al Basil High School for Superiors has the same name but it is located in As-Suwayda. (the article has the same issues with notability)

2620:6E:6000:3100:9C6F:68DE:985E:292B (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If the consensus is leaning towards "keep" or "no consensus" then the closing editor is free to ignore my comments above. Lorstaking (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the additional suggested reference material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify‎ to address and improve sourcing which no one, including the nominator, appears to have an objection to. Star Mississippi 18:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Mesquita (artist)[edit]

Ana Mesquita (artist) (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)

Draftify rather than delete per discussion below - This promotionally-toned article is on an artist who does not meet WP criteria for WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. All of the sources in the article are primary sources, from galleries of events she is directly connected to, press releases/announcements, or are about other people and mention her in passing. A WP:BEFORE reveals social media and more primary sources. She has collaborated with notable people, but that is not inherited through association. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON for this artist. Netherzone (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Netherzone,
I was the writer for this page but to be honest it is my first full page writing - I have double checked the references and I can vouch for the artist's continuing relevance in Portugal (e.g. she's presently commissioned for art on Portuguese national cultural TV channel - RTP2) and preparing an exhibition in Cascais.
I've checked that you've written very many well approved pages, so I hope to learn something from you - I will take the time to study your structuring, and change Ana Mesquita's page accordingly - the learning process to produce a good page is steep in the sense that the best-practices are sometimes unclear. I can tell you that once I noticed the page had been marked for being promotional toned I changed the text accordingly but did not see any change in status.
Thanks to you guys I'll continue on.
Thank you Port norw (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Port norw, thank you for your message. I've worked on a lot of articles on women artists and Indigenous artists over the years, so I'm familiar with the criteria for notability for visual artists. Please try to find sources that are fully independent, meaning that there is no connection to the artist whatsoever (not a gallery where she showed, or a place she worked, or a project she was involved with, or an interview or press release) - things others have written about her who are not connected to her. WP needs reliable secondary sources to establish notability And these should be in depth, significant coverage, not a name-check mention, or a few sentences...for more info see WP:SIGCOV; and should be in what WP considers reliable sources - see WP:RS for more info. Blogs, advertorials, or native advertising are not reliable. Sources that are mainly about other people (like some of the famous people that she has shown with) but only mention her briefly or not at all, don't really count, because notability is not inherited from others she associates with. If those sources exist, that could help her pass GNG. As far as passing NARTIST, see if she is in any notable museum collections, and if there are several notable museums or national galleries as that would be a pass for NARTIST. Also note that future planned events don't really count, those events must have already occurred and be covered in independent secondary sources (not the commissioning or exhibiting organization). Hope that helps clarify! My sense is it is simply WP:TOOSOON and in a few years there will be enough independent significant coverage in reliable sources for an article on this artist. Netherzone (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind answer - I will follow your suggestions and will change things accordingly. I will have time to start this later tonight, so I hope to have substantive changes soon. When so, I will reach out again.
By the way, I went through your work and picked some to read (a bit randomly, subjects that I felt could - based on name - be aligned to the needs of my article and I loved your work. Port norw (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, I am not familiar with the criteria foir inclusion of this kind of pages. But I note that there are several references which are not primary sources contrary to the nomination. They are not much of references anyway, except for one: rr.sapo.pt Rádio Renascença (a radio interview in one of the main radio stations on Portugal), the other two are dn.pt Diário de Notícias (but it is a dead link...), and publico.pt Público (not mentioned in the article) - Nabla (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Nabla, interviews are primary sources and non-independent. Diario is unverifiable, and I don't see a link for Público for verification. Netherzone (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Seraphimblade and @Netherzone.
I have been slowly but surely improving the page text and its references, and I feel I have brought it to a point that might - hopefully - grant your review of at least two of the previous status. Given I am a novice, I am not sure of the protocol to deal with them and prefer to err on the safe side by not touching them myself, although I saw somewhere that one might be allowed to.
It might be that we have hit an interesting issue: my thinking for building an English page for a Portuguese visual artist and for a Norwegian Historian, is grounded on the belief that English is the "national language" of the larger internet. I am aware that both Norwegian and Portuguese have their own wikipedia areas, seemingly with their own sets of granular standards (I've seen pages in both languages that would probably not pass an acid test in an English wikipedia).
When building a set of references - on those subjects - one is quickly drawn into a curious observation: most if not all references are in the subject's language, which will create a barrier for people who - like you - have the kindness to part with time and brainpower to evaluate the page.
On the other hand, known reference engines seem to give back much more detailed, richer and validated results. In this particular case of Ana Mesquita, one of the reference sites (MAAT museum, in Lisbon), where the biggest collaborative work was first presented, is known to have a poor museologic approach to artist's references and CV's on their website (it is better in loco, but there you go...). Which means that the best and most interesting reference to this work (here) is ... notably... terse.
So, in a perfect worid, one or both of you guys (or anyone else kind enough) would guide me a bit on the former issue and think a bit about the latter - all in all, the fact that English is the "offical language of global culturally relevant internet" while also being the official language of two of the most culturally relevant countries of the 20th and 21st centuries should align benignly... with your help?
Thank you! Port norw (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Port norw, Non-English sources are fine, as long as they can be verified. I'm familiar with the MAAT museum in Lisbon, and I see from the press release you added that she showed there with Gil and Couto, but am not finding that she is in their permanent collection. Please link here the three very best independent reviews of her work. Independent means written by a completely unconnected, non-affiliated source (rather than a sponsoring organization, or a gallery who sells or exhibits her work), and not a press release or a show announcement or her own website. WP needs secondary sources, like reviews on her in a newspaper or magazine article, or a chapter in a book, that are significant coverage in a WP:RS - more than a mention or a few sentences. If you can find three solid, in-depth, independent reviews, she'd pass WP:GNG or 2 or 3 notable museum or national gallery permanent collections, she'd pass WP:NARTIST in English Wikipedia. (Other things that contribute to notability on en-Wiki but those are the two that are usually most easily found in online searches). These should not be things scheduled for the future. Note that each language WP has different standards and criteria for inclusion. So she might qualify for an article in Portuguese Wikipedia. Also I noticed some of the sources are "dead links" check to see if you can update any of the URLs for sources that come up "page not found". Netherzone (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind and useful feedback @Netherzone - I've double checked now and all the sources that "dead links" had indeed been replaced, yesterday. None of the other sources are self-published, except for the institutional website of Viagem pelo Esquecimento, which is the only place where I found a complete list of collaborators. Some are newspaper news and references, some from TV shows.
I will now search for reviews and sources that follow your guidance and will come back to it. Thank you for your precious help! Port norw (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft: Without comment on nom, object to deletion based on the above discussion. @Port norw:, very good contribution, nicely written, just needs some sourcing work, especially since this is a WP:BLP.  // Timothy :: talk  09:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with Draftification of this article to allow for time to incubate and refine it. Good idea, @TimothyBlue, I will change the nom to draftify, and @Port norw and I can work on it in draftspace; we have a good rapport so it should be a pleasure working together. Although I feel it's TOOSOON now, in due time and with more independent coverage, she may likely be Wiki-notable in the future. @Port norw, are you OK with sending back to draftspace for now so it can be further developed and resubmitted in the future? Netherzone (talk) 16:05, 2 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) 00:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Hugman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, especially in that significant coverage of the article subject is lacking, and fails WP:BIO. Created originally by a WP:SPA and significantly edited by the article subject, particularly recently, attempting to own the article. Reads like a resume and is primarily promotional of the article subject's publications. Geoff | Who, me? 22:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Boxing, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Mainly written by the subject and highly promotional. Definitely full on COI and with only one reference does not verify notability. ww2censor (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree about the promo but we fix that issue via editing, not deletion. I'm going to remove the promo stuff, and fix it up a bit. Atsme 💬 📧 16:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC) Adding Per WP:NEXIST: The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources in libraries, bookstores, and the internet) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. 18:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The first reference is the only one where Hugman is actually the subject. The second mentions Hugman in two sentences, the third doesn't even mention Hugman as it is about Boxing Monthly and not Hugman. The fourth is about one of Hugman's books and, again, not Hugman himself. There is a grand total of one reference specifically about Hugman and it is archived because it is a deadlink. I think this fails WP:NBASIC. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm...Hugman co-founded Boxing Monthly and was the launch editor. The magazine lasted 31 years. His work is historic. I highly recommend that the delete voters read the guideline WP:Author because Hugman fits #2, #3 & #4 under Creative Professionals. He is unequivocally notable. Atsme 💬 📧 19:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Boxing Monthly itself has one deadlink as a source and that was a link to a subscription page. Considering that the magazine itself isn't currently meeting WP:NOTE you can't coatrack Hugman into notability by using it. In any case, notability is not inherited. #2 of WP:AUTHOR is "originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" which doesn't apply here. I don't see how 3 or 4 quality either. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: Can you provide reliable sources? If he is so historic there must be sources to verify his notability. If you have sources please add them to the article. ww2censor (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He easily satisfies WP:Author, as I've already mentioned. I neither have access to a library or old newspapers/magazines in order to do the kind of research you want done, nor do I have the time to spend on it. Rest assured, the sources exist. I already found a few sources in the limited amount of time I have to contribute here. Keep in mind that Hugman was born in 1941; therefore, editors need to consider the years he was a pioneering statistician, and author of over 60 books, annuals, etc. Those days were not like today's online social media; rather, those were the days of print media. His body of work alone screams of notability. Other authors of various magazines, reputable journals, reference works, and sports books have frequently cited him. Quick example: this Cambridge article cites his book (footnote 41). Dig into archived newspapers. See my quickie list.
  • Over 118 sources to cite:
  1. Black Country Evening Male, pg 69, 04-09-1982
  2. Daily Post, pg 24, 12-20-1987;
  3. Liverpool Echo, pg 70, 03-27-1993;
  4. Hull Daily Mail, pg 52, 10-29-1988;
  5. The Daily Telegraph, pg 45, 11-18-1998; "The 20,000 in a league of their own", Bryon Butler, "Talking Football"
  6. The Independent, pg 63, 11-18-1996;
  7. The Guardian, pg 72, 09-28-2000;
  8. Cambridge Evening News, pg 50, 11-02-1990
  9. The Birmingham Post, pg 16, 10-30-1992
Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 02:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please improve the article using these sources and explain how they show significant coverage of the subject? I can then re-consider. GiantSnowman 11:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If only I had the extra time, I would happily oblige. I did remove the promo language; however, boxing and football are not in my area of interest. You are welcome to use any or all of the sources I provided in my comments, and in the list below. I have even included more sources today, and highly recommend a refresh read of WP:NEXIST to the delete ivoters. This BLP should never have been an AfD nom. Atsme 💬 📧 18:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of the multiple COIs, he is an authority in football statistics, [75], [76], you will need to look around for the right kind of citation to build the article correctly. But WP:NAUTHOR clearly states.
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique;
His published works fall into concept of sports statistics, he is cited by multiple organisations for this. Btw, @GiantSnowman: I am surprised you would say there is no notability for this person when I've even seen you cite his works. Yes there is a degree of primary sourcing surrounding the article, but that shouldn't negate his importance towards sports statistics in his fields. Govvy (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how somebody running a reputable website means they are notable? GiantSnowman 11:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
confused face icon Just curious...how many times has Hugman been cited in WP? Regardless, here's another source, this time it is one that is critical of Hugman's work: Playing Pasts. But wait...there's more!
  • The Independent, 12-17-1993. Specific to this BLP, WP:NEXIST also states that the evidence must show the topic has gained significant recognition. Recognition includes one's work being cited by other authors, as well as thanked, appreciated and/or recognized in their books. Internet Archive produced 90 results for Barry Hugman, and I reviewed quite a few books and forwards, as well as full paragraphs by other authors who provided recognition of Hugman's contributions. See following examples:
  • (pg 194) The Encyclopedia of Boxing (1989) by Gilbert E. Odd:] "In 1985 Barry Hugman produced his British Boxing Yearbook, an extensive volume containing records and facts covering British fighters and their contests since the turn of the century. A comprehensive and invaluable volume for all connected with the fight game in a world-wide capacity. This has become an annual volume, subsequent editions having appeared each year since."
  • (Page 19) The official Football Association non-League club directory. (1999) "It was at this stage that another friend, Barry Hugman, influenced the book’s future.
Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 18:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: I didn't mention the website in the regards as to your reply to my last post and Atsme is a long standing editor who has covered the same as what I am saying, the qualifier here is the Books Hugman has published. Hence why I point to NAUTHOR. Govvy (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does he meet GNG? GiantSnowman 19:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per Atsme and Govvy. Clearly notable sports writer and historian with sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Atsme, appears to have WP:SIGCOV. Per Govvy, appears to also pass WP:NAUTHOR. Since either would be sufficient to presume notability under WP:N, and the promo was easily dealt with by editing, I see no persuasive reason to delete. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes GNG per above coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:30, 1 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 18:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghislain Cordeel[edit]

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

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Merge into his brother Amaury's page at least, but Ghislain's career is completely irrelevant to Amaury's, so maybe fully delete Ghislain's page. - 2A01:36D:1200:4672:44C3:46D:541B:FBBF (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Okay driver at best, that did well in some national series. Some feeder series, no so, nothing top level. No prejudice for a recreation in the future though if he has more significance in the future but I guess he'll be another run of the mill driver. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen Soldier (band)[edit]

Citizen Soldier (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)

This article was created by copying Draft:Citizen Soldier (band) and adding two links to their website as references. There's no need to skip the AfC Process and create a badly referenced article. Nobody (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. Not seeing any significant coverage. --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. PROMO. Llajwa (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to insufficient sources cited in the article to demonstrate WP:N. Moreover, my own WP:BEFORE discovers nothing that changes that. Chetsford (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Fails notability at this point. speedy delete and undo the redirected draft. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, delete. Brianroswell (talk) 00:52, 2 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. Consensus reached, including the nominator. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Treatment Plant[edit]

South Treatment Plant (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)

Unremarkable lump of infrastructure. Can't see that the sources establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (as page creator): I agree that I did not add enough sources when I initially created this page. I have added several, demonstrating significant coverage by local news agencies throughout the plant's lifespan. This is not a mundane treatment plant, it serves a very large, populated area. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are quite a few of this type of infrastructure in Category:Sewage treatment plants and there appears to be appropriate sourcing and content for its coverage. Reywas92Talk 16:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seriously? Sewage treatment plants are not notable, claiming they are is just a metaphor for rot that has set in here. Apologies, I should have said that sewage plants are run-of-the-mill and this should be deleted because of WP:Run-of-the-mill. Please, please, please click on the above voters category and take in the awesome# of sewage plants on wikipedia before closing this as "keep". apologies for that. Please somebody If this closes as delete I will nominate prod all those sewage plants for deletion.!!! James.folsom (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC) edit:James.folsom (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @James.folsom, I don't know if this AfD will close as "delete" but please look at these before you take it on yourself to delete every sewage treatment plant article:
    You've referred here and elsewhere to WP:Run-of-the-mill -- that is an essay. It is a non-binding opinion piece.
    Deletion decisions are based on the guideline and policy above, not an essay.
    What's run of the mill and uninteresting to you may have value to others - and vice versa. One of the two articles you've created is Dettol antiseptic liquid. Most readers probably don't care and might say a household cleaner is run-of-the-mill. But your article meets our policy and guideline, so it stays, run-of-the-mill or not. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy.
    There are engineers and others that are interested in infrastructure articles like South Treatment Plant.
    See also Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. You need to think about what the alternatives to deletion will be as part of your purge strategy. That's going to take some work on your part -- creating lists or merging content into existing articles. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Firstly, those who voted keep should take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. As noted above, there are many many articles of eye-watering non- notable subjests on WP. Seconly, I do not see any sources that are not routine coverage in local sources. Wikipedia is not solely for people in Renton.TheLongTone (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the adequate sourcing found in the article. Wikipedia may not be solely for the people of Renton but it is for them as much as any other people. Also Wikipedia is not paper (i.e. it has room for niche topics that paper encyclopedias might eschew). Eluchil404 (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This vote is wp:everything.James.folsom (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    wp:nothing JM (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:EVERYTHING and WP:NOTHING are essays. So's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. They're just opinions. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • more comment I would also point out that this plant is not considered interesting enough to be mentioned on the Renton page. Had this not been the case, I would have redirected rather than AfDing.TheLongTone (talk)
  • Also the claim that because wikipedia is digital, there is no reason to limit what it contains is not a well thought out argument. It doesn't take in to account other reasons we might not want to have "everything in wikipedia. EG, there are a finite number of volunteers to maintain it, just to name one reason. James.folsom (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in sources used is largely local in nature, describing the stuff that happens at a sewage plant, upgrades, etc. Very much run of the mill. Beyond confirming it exists and does what it's supposed to, I can't see anything that makes it notable. Sourcing isn't anything you wouldn't find in any local newspaper, telling local taxpayers what their money is spent on. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any reason that sewage treatment plants generally and this one specifically do not meet our notability guidelines. jengod (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I think it's nice that we can take sewage treatment plants for granted as invisible infrastructure that is so unremarkable it doesn't warrant mention in the histories. However, I think the human history of dying of cholera, and the ongoing effect of eutrophication on ocean biodiversity tell me that sewage treatment is actually Very Important. (My local treatment plant started out in the 20s using a hollowed-out redwood log as the flume that poured the sewage directly into the ocean!) jengod (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea of treating sewage & methods of doing so are notable. Individual plants generally will not be.TheLongTone (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're probably right. I might even change my vote (but I'm sad about losing knowledge). Do we have notability guidelines for specific infrastructure or are they generally classified as "architecture"? jengod (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I looked into any related research or business transactions related to the plant that might establish notability and found only one mention of it, in that it was connected to a pump station in Kirkland, Washington that was upgraded in 2005.[1] Reconrabbit 16:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Pump Station Project Increases System Capacity." Pacific Builder and Engineer, vol. 115, no. 5, 2 Mar. 2009, p. 10. Gale Business: Insights, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A194951504/ Accessed 19 Jan. 2024.
  • Merge: This and West Point Treatment Plant are important infrastructure in King County that played a significant role in cleaning up the Puget Sound, but since both plants were built around the same time, by the same entity, and had similar impacts, the two should be merged together to form a page titled something like like King County Treatment Plants (with appropriate redirects). The subject of sewage treatment facilities in King County is notable, though the individual plants may not be notable enough for their own articles. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 21:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge changing vote from keep to merge per DJ Cane's comment above. jengod (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the articles are merged, it will be harder to include unique information about each plant (such as the flood at West Point or the geographic characteristics of South). Also, there is the Brightwater Treatment Plant article which further complicates a merge. Brightwater is a far more recent plant, with its own history. It is simpler to keep the three articles on the notable plants, and this preserves more information. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, I think these plants have short enough history individually that they can be handled in the same article with the use of subheadlines. Each one is no longer than two paragraphs long and the history section of West Point Treatment Plant literally has the See also: South Treatment Plant tag. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 02:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Keep’’’ or ‘’’Merge’’’ as above. Major public infrastructural projects etc. that affect local society and environment and receive media coverage for doing so are notable. (also, it’s a very cool building, from the photo.) Llajwa (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The merge is rather newly suggested. Thoughts regarding this would be very helpful, including if desired from anyone who commented above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just and additional argument to my delete vote. Somebody, kindly recently explained something about WP:GNG. That is that to meet that policy an article needs secondary sources. This doesn't have any, I've not found any. Somebody should make sure the merge targets meet WP:GNG as well.James.folsom (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - did anyone check Google Scholar, JSTOR or the Wikipedia Library? This plant's been the subject of many technical firsts and scientific papers. I added several to the article; Google Scholar says there's 60-70 more papers out there. This is one of the few plants in the world that treats its biogas to commercial pipeline quality. King County installed a 1MW molten carbonate fuel cell to use its biogas; at the time it was the largest ever built. Also, this plant serves 650,000 people; that's "not nothin". --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have expanded the article and have added 6 refs from Google Scholar and JSTOR searches. I left another one on the talk page. These papers have been interesting to read -- King County has been an engineering leader with this plant.
    I'm done for now. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jengod, @DJ Cane, @Oaktree b - see the refs added since your !vote. --05:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC) A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One other observation: the current cost to build a new plant with this capacity is on the order of $3 billion.[77] --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 07:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - happily changing vote back to keep (I unironically love a good biogas digester). Thank you for the expansion A. B.! jengod (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you @A. B.: for significantly expanding the article and clearly showing notability. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Keep per A. B. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 13:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination, above arguments & recent additions to article make this worth inclusion.TheLongTone (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CRRC Massachusetts[edit]

CRRC Massachusetts (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 there's enough sigcov to demonstrate independent notability for CRRC MA, or that it needs a separate page. It should probably be redirected to CRRC, at least for now. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure? Then majority of online articles relating to CRRC factories around the world, would need to be deleted. Yeahimaboss413 (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it's fine. Has decent sourcing and providing railcars for SEPTA, MBTA, and the LA Metro is notable enough as those are some of the biggest public transit networks in the US. --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely notable in context of regional infrastructure and economy. This is not corporate self promotion, it’s valuable information. Sourcing needs work. Llajwa (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has gotten plenty of notability. I worked on this as a draft for a while. And there will be some more coming when the HR4000s enter service. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 05:53, 3 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. Policy based input is split between merge and delete. However, the proposed target does not exist and there is nowhere to merge this. Should it be created, there is no need to go through Refund, just ping me and I'll undelete the history for a merger (Unless of course another admin is part of creation in which case, please of course do it directly). Star Mississippi 17:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC) ETA Mayoral elections in Chattanooga, Tennessee subsequently created and this has been redirected there to enable editors to create a merge. Star Mississippi 18:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Chattanooga mayoral election[edit]

2017 Chattanooga mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The election is not notable and is of negligible importance.

The 2023 election is not WP:N. This election does not seem notable unlike the 2021 election. After searches there is non regular coverage and certainly no WP:SIGCOV.

Simply does not pass WP:GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have found notable sources and will update this article very shortly. I have already started to work on it and it will be completed tonight GatewayPolitics (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Completed article. It should now pass WP:GNG GatewayPolitics (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is interesting for people who like politics and is a good way to consolidate sources about a local election. If you don’t care about this topic, don’t edit the article, but there is no need to delete it. asi1998 (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, there's plenty of sources for the election. Jimbo218 (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand and enjoy politics greatly. A majority of my edits on Wiki are on the topic of politics. However, I believe this falls under WP:NOTNEWS, in addition to what I previously mentioned. Grahaml35 (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should recheck the article, the article was sent to deletion only 2 minutes after it was published. But since then I have completed the article, and put numerous sources. Also the main candidate that won is in the Biden Administration (Andy Berke), so the article has some notability GatewayPolitics (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an informative article with several reliable sources.--Fan Of Volunteer Politics (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC) — Fan of Volunteer Politics (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JM (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep Since the creation of this deletion discussion, the author has cited several reliable sources establishing the subject's notability. This is a good article William on Tires (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The difference between the 2021 election page, and this one, is simply a different creator, and four years of format changes/enhancements. That in and of itself does not make 2017 any less important or any less accurate. — Maile (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Who decides what's "notable"? Are we low on article space? This is a city of nearly 200K.
    Cole Dalton (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wiki standards set in place... WP:N Grahaml35 (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who canvasses seven years after an event is over? The election happened in 2017, and the article was written in 2024. — Maile (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious, but for full clarity in case it is the latter: here canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior. Posting on Twitter "everyone vote keep for this article" is blatant canvassing. Curbon7 (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying my nomination for deletion is WP:Canvassing? Grahaml35 (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're saying Posting on Twitter "everyone vote keep for this article" is blatant canvassing. JM (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's a chart and a few lines of text, I'd expect to see some sort of discussion about the candidates or events that happened during the campaign. I can't see why this election was notable, other than having happened, I don't see GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two paragraphs of text in there, if you would like, I could add a campaign background tab, But this has more text than the 2021 one GatewayPolitics (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also it is notable given the candidate that won is in the Biden Administration. Also has numerous sources GatewayPolitics (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTINHERITED JM (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Go check yourself GatewayPolitics (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even read what I linked? I don't have to check anything, because it doesn't matter whether or not he's a federal official now, the point is that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from other subjects. This election isn't notable just because one of the candidates went on to become a federal official. Things aren't notable just because someone involved in them later goes on to become a federal official. JM (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For stating an opinion to an article, it is best to look at it. I know it doesn't matter that he's in federal official now, the election was well covered and has numerous media attention GatewayPolitics (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not expressing an opinion on the article; keep in mind that I haven't even !voted one way or the other, I just saw an argument based on notability inheritance and had to point out that notability is not inherited. I have no opinion on the article itself or whether or not it is notable without inheritance. JM (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on WP:NOTNEWS grounds - a local event with no lasting significance and no coverage outside the local area, which is usually what we have required in the past IIRC. SportingFlyer T·C 11:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Executive election of a city of more than 200,000 people. Well covered in the media. GNG pass and passes the smell test as an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since many keep !votes are not rooted in our policies/guidelines and have apparently been canvassed. Is there any coverage suggesting widespread or long-term impact?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge I think all the Chattanooga mayoral articles should be merged. Just like
GatewayPolitics (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a list as we tend to do for mayoral elections in mid-sized American cities; there doesn't seem to be anything especially noteworthy about this one that makes keeping a separate page necessary. Would rather keep than delete if it comes to that, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not think the closer's comment for relisting is appropriate. The only question is whether there is appropriate coverage about the election, that is does the election meet GNG. There is no requirement, although it may be helpful, for a stand-alone election for a strong mayor to be widespread or have long-term significance (although at least one keep vote did suggest the mayor who was elected would become a member of the Biden administration). I also do not think WP:NOTNEWS applies. NOTNEWS is usually for routine events. A municipal election for mayor of a decent sized city may not make the candidates eligible for a stand-alone article, but the level of coverage of the electoral contest may be enough for stand-alone article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enos733 (talk • contribs) 28 January 2024 (UTC)
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 07:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rekky[edit]

Rekky (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)

App is seemingly defunct, appears to be no news coverage since 2015. One source appears to be published by the company behind the app. Most of its notability seems to come from WP:INHERITORG, by the "tastemakers" mentioned in the information section. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 04:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ as per Wikipedia:PROCEDURALCLOSE. Schwede66 04:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Mableton mayoral election[edit]

2023 Mableton mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local election for a small suburb. It has not been covered by any media outside of the Atlanta metropolitan area, failing WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:GNG. SounderBruce 04:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:CSK #1. (non-admin closure)‎ Jfire (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmetsburg, Iowa[edit]

Emmetsburg, Iowa (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)

just because Contribution guy (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: No valid deletion rationale has been proposed. Johnj1995 (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XSpot Wealth[edit]

AfDs for this article:
XSpot Wealth (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)

Neither the English coverage or the Greek coverage seems to meet sigcov. A WP:BEFORE in English didn't turn up anything either. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Messaging System[edit]

National Messaging System (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 too soon for an article on a government program that was just funded and is in the early stages of planning, with no guarantee that it will actually be completed and limited details on what the program will do. Suggest draftifying as it might be finished by the end of 2024. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Australia. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has adequate references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's sigcov here already, so I think we don't need to worry about "what if it doesn't get completed" - I would expect more sigcov to appear whether it is ultimately completed or not. -- asilvering (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge an unsourced article: Meets GNG. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE show SIGCOV, its a new system so there cannot be long term LASTING but sources cover its development and deployment so it does have as much LASTING as possible at this ooint, sources pass GEOSCOPE its clearly a national subject.
The content from Emergency Alert Australia (currently unsourced) should be summarized and merged into a history section in this article. The sourcing in this article (National Messaging System) has enough information to source a summary of the information in Emergency Alert Australia so moving the unsourced material will source it. Leave a redirect and both will be improved. If this is kept, please ping me and I will post this merge proposal separately (unless someone wants to second boldly doing this).  // Timothy :: talk  09:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue: I second your bold merge and withdraw my nom. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:09, 2 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 speedy keep‎ per WP:SNOW. It is abundantly clear that there will not be a consensus for any result other than Keep, and leaving this discussion to run the full 7 days is unlikely to be a productive use of anyone's time. The WordsmithTalk to me 05:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC) The WordsmithTalk to me 05:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standoff at Eagle Pass[edit]

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

WP:NSUSTAINED, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:SENSATIONAL: This topic is way too early (brief bursts of news coverage) and geographically limited to be considered for its own article, and even if it was, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this article is making a far bigger deal (sensationalist) out of a otherwise limited event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashersel (talk • contribs) 00:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC) — Ashersel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • I disagree; this is one of the most notable events of Operation Lone Star, which has its own Wikipedia article. I'd say that this merits an article of its own. WorldMappings (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard disagree, this is a notable enough event as it's a state that defying the Supreme Court orders. Vextium (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting perspective. I think it is not geographically limited, given that almost all the current Republican Governors have pledged their support to the State of Texas in this dispute, and further some are sending aid or National Guardsmen. Further, the U.S. Supreme court has touched on this case. Would appreciate your thoughts in response. Thank you Firepengu (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 26. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 00:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree: It represents a bigger issue currently going on in the United States and it's something that could quickly become much uglier. Far less significant events have Wikipedia articles as well. Ye9CYNMD (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, this should not be deleted Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold or even temporarily close this per WP:RAPID: "As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge ...". I'd support merging at this exact moment, but it's hard to tell how that will change over the next seven days of the standard AfD runtime. Ed [talk] [OMT] 00:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the page, Hard disagree. As the article notes, an armed standoff between federal and state forces in regard to the immigration crisis is unprecedented in modern American history, and could lead to serious consequences. WP:NOTNEWS isn't a ban on covering recent events, it's a ban on trivial matters and writing articles like a newspaper would. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 00:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard disagree. Texas' malcompliance with the Supreme Court on its own should make this event fairly notable. The fact that 25 other Republican governors signed onto a joint statement eliminates WP:GEOSCOPE. Sources are cited enough to the point where this doesn't fulfill the niche of WP:NOTNEWS. Operation Lone Star and the razor wire saga have been covered for weeks at this point, and while they may not be front-page news, they are still news items nonetheless, eliminating WP:NSUSTAINED. WP:SENSATIONAL may be a genuine problem, but it can most definitely be resolved through continuous page revision. There is no need to delete the article at this time, in my opinion. VoidDiamondz (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard disagree: an armed standoff between state and federal governments is a notable event. Journob (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold - I disagree that the claim of geographically limited, but I agree on it being too early to have an article about. No matter what high court rules or state governors support, at the end of the day this is disgruntled old men fighting over access to a small piece of land. Article should be either merged or deleted if nothing happens, but it's too early to be calling for a deletion now. 5.42.77.223 (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC) — 5.42.77.223 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Disagree, this is quite an unprecedented and noteworthy incident in contemporary US politics. Much less significant incidents in our day have received their own articles on Wikipedia. If sensationalism is a concern, perhaps the article name could be changed. Standoff does sound a little “hot” considering the situation isn’t severely escalated yet, and the word is more often used to describe higher-intensity conflicts than this. WWWHHHHYYYYYY (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft keep, while I think you might have a point with WP:NOTNEWS, I’d say that the potential for this to become a constitutional crisis means that there is likely to be sustained and significant coverage in the coming days. If nothing comes of the Standoff (as is most likely) then I’d say it’d be worth re-considering deletion.
Slamforeman (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree: An armed standoff between the federal government and a state government is very noteworthy. Pauliexcluded (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft keep Given that this started 15 days ago on January 11th, and there are sources from that date until today, I'd say that for the immediate term NSUSTAINED is met. NOTNEWS is possible, though with Abbott defying a Supreme Court order and numerous other state governors seeming to support this (ABC News), this seems unprecedented in modern US history. GEOSCOPE doesn't apply here as this has had both national (NBC News, CNN) and limited international (The Independent UK) coverage. Finally as for SENSATIONAL, this has been covered by reputable non-tabloid non-sensationalistic reliable sources. This may eventually be an article that we delete, but it also has the potential to be kept. If deletion is seriously considered, I strongly advocate for draftifying per WP:ATD-I. That would give an incubation space for the article while the immediate events unfurl and for sourcing to stabilise. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’’Strong Keep’’’: noteworthy, plus for several GOP Governors to support and some to send the national guard in defiance of a SCOTUS ruling, must keep Alhanuty (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. This is a significant current event that will almost certainly have lasting implications even if it is resolved without escalating further. bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 01:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the thing is widely talked about, involves important political figures, including elected officials, revolves around security of a sovereign country, will most likely have long lasting implications and results no matter the outcome. I don't know about the name but the content of the article definitely should be kept - people who want to delete it are just agenda-driven and love censorship. Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - While we won't know how impactful this event will have in the future, keeping track of unprecedented events like these (especially ones that attempt to defy judicial and executive powers) is important. Right now it's best to consider this a developing incident and certainly not immediate deletion. A proper title can be decided with more happening and/or more information made available, but flat out deletion is just ludicrous. BWellsOdyssey (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user should be tagged as having a single purpose account, they have no edits or contributions preceding this proposal 2603:6080:65F0:89E0:9C95:19C1:BA5A:E886 (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now/Disagree, it already appears significant to me beyond a single news burst, particularly given how Texas refused compliance with federal law and is seeing conflict between US and Texas forces. If it ultimately shows to be insignificant after a couple months, then maybe the question can be reconsidered. LaborHorizontal (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - This is a major event that has received national and international attention. Deleting it now would be a huge mistake. Imagine if we deleted it right before this escalated to the Second US Civil War. Even if nothing further happens, this is still something that will be marked in the historical record as an important event in US politics in 2024. LesbianTiamat (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, this is a very notable event. The number of governors supporting Texas and the risk of escalation makes it a very unique. Historyenjoyer452 (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding geographic limitations, 2605:A601:AE78:6F00:7973:FBB:1EBA:BEE8 (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GEOSCOPE do not apply to a situation where you have large amounts of reliable sources from across the country. It has certainly had sustained coverage over the last few weeks. Generalissima (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Geographic limitations as an argument seems to have gone out the window once elected officials representing 50% of the landmass of the united states publicly expressed support for explicit defiance of the supremacy clause and opposition to federal forces. Even if the current locus of the conflict is only one part of one location within Texas, that balloons the conflict out far wider. It is also immediately notable as an event largely without precedent. -- Sappow (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if nothing happens of this particular incident, deleting the page then to fold into the larger Operation Lone Star page as a subsection would make sense. But right now this seems like something that should remain separate. -- Sappow (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Very noteworthy event that has been going on for two weeks now, I would not call it very early; Can be removed or absorbed into a more encompassing article if it is shown in the future to be insignificant WiIIem (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In today's episode of "what the fuck is going on with United States politics"... Aside from the joke, this is very notable in the crazy world of U.S. politics. qw3rty 01:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: An extremely important event of the year. Could have far-reaching consequences in American and international geopolitics. It is important to keep people informed with this page. Bauthier24 (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:TOOSOON applies, but I feel in this case it is self-evident that this is going to receive sustained coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We can always delete it later if nothing comes of it, but I very much doubt that this will have no consequences. Meshakhad (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This will be more than likely a significant moment in American politics. At best, it is a modern nullification crisis, at worst, we're about to see a boogaloo. As politicized as the 1832 crisis but now with half of the nation. Lohengrin03 (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Keep. It is of importance that we maintain this. It is not only sustained and fits the content of policy. But it also likely to escalate into something more dramatic, even though It already qualifies for an article with or without an escalation notice. Radiourgía Promithéas (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Pretty significant event, and already has significant coverage. If you believe it is sensationalist, maybe you should consider rephrasing it to better fit Wikipedia instead of nominating it for deletion. Frigyes06 (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep this is clearly a significant event. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This story has been way over-sensationalized and is not nearly as big a deal as people are acting. It's just Abbot grandstanding. There's a reason the national media is giving this very little attention. Doesn't need a whole page of its own, just write a few sentences about it on Abbott's page or something. Kevingates4462 (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep ...This is quite a big deal and very noteworthy. What's happening may actually veer off into "constitutional crisis" territory. There's no way we're going to delete this, right? --District9123 (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject is notable for a confrontation between state and federal governments over jurisdiction. Geographical limitation is not a reason for an event not being notable. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hold/Merge A lot of the arguments to keep seem to relate to a supposed defiance of a SCOTUS ruling on Shelby Park. SCOTUS has not ruled on Shelby Park. It has ruled on an emergency appeal and vacated a temporary injunction related to a pre-existing dispute, dating back to October 2023, months before Shelby Park in Eagle Pass was seized. The SCOTUS ruling only concerns the USBP and whether it can cut border wire or not (it ruled it can, pending the outcome of the actual trial). TX can't "defy" the order if it wanted to (unless defying is arguing the case before the Fifth Circuit as per normal procedure), because it does not concern them, and TX AG response to the ruling says as much. SCOTUS made no ruling on whether USBP should be let back into Shelby Park or whether Texas can keep dropping razor wire. There are a lot of political figures who should know better making grandiose claims about boldly defying the federal government, but this is par for the course grandstanding. KiharaNoukan (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU. People do not seem to understand the actual facts here. Abbott is trying to make a big show out of a little thing and people are falling for it. Kevingates4462 (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for now, I don't see any benefit to the community to deleting this page currently. This could fizzle out tomorrow in which case I would say merge into the more general article on the matter, but it could also escalate in which case the article would need to be researched and rewritten again. Either way the content here is relevant and represents a notable constitutional crisis brewing --Goldman60 Talk — Preceding undated comment added 03:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeeP Abbott is trying to make a big show of a growing thing (constitutional crisis) he wants big but wants to be seen as small until it gets undeniably big. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 03:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I feel that the current coverage of this issue is limited, predominantly one-sided, and insufficient for a full article. This would fit well as a portion of the larger Operation Lone Star page. Boyscoutringo (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this article should stay simply for historical reasons should it be needed in the future. JamesnLollify (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User:Billed Mammal put it perfectly with "WP:TOOSOON applies, but I feel in this case it is self-evident that this is going to receive sustained coverage". I will add that it's inadvisable to rush to delete articles about breaking news. Editors do not have a crystal ball, and that includes lacking the ability to see that notability will not endure. As others have mentioned above, should notability fail to endure, merging or redirecting is a sensible alternative preferable to deletion, but at this time, keeping makes the most sense.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but perhaps consider a less sensational title like "2024 Eagle Pass Immigration Dispute". Standoff implies threat of deadly force, and that has not happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C1:8202:5590:50DE:4AA1:5B02:40F7 (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HOLD/KEEP I think it's too soon to tell if it should be merged with operation lone star, and for now it'd be best to let it unfold and see how significant this becomes. Also, I do not think WP:TOOSOON applies, because there is already verifiable coverage of the event in independent secondary reliable sources
JewelsVerne (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Placing less weight on the !votes that aren't based on P&G, consensus to delete emerges. Owen× ☎ 01:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of rampage killers (familicides in the United States)[edit]

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

I'm nominating this as a kind of test case and to gather opinions of experienced AfD editors on this kind of page, of which there are quite a number including List of rampage killers (familicides in the Americas) and List of rampage killers. I'm going to argue that this list in particular fails the GNG because sources are not provided that specifically note the importance of this type of crime - which the page gives as family killers, but seems to exclude those killers who are killed in police gunfights (for example). I'm going to suggest that this list is therefore strongly editorialised (arguably WP:OR) with regard to what is or is not included. Fundamentally I don't think we need this list and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. JMWt (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Familicides are a distinct category in criminology and have been so for a very long time (Paul Näcke's "Über Familienmord durch Geisteskranke" was published in 1908). The topic is socially and scientifically relevant, which is proven beyond doubt by the countless books, research papers and newspaper articles on the topic. The same is true for the rest of the "Lists of rampage killers". (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]
For the benefit of other contributors to this discussion, you are the originator and main editor that has worked on these lists, correct? JMWt (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have started these lists, but have not done any edits on them for 10 years now. (Lord Gøn (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose. Familicides are a specific and independently discussed type of mass/spree/rampage murder (the terminology issue there is 90% of the problem, but that's the sin of academics, not us, and is a whole other issue). The scope is definitely arguable but I don't see any reason why it should be deleted, barring a question of this family of lists as a whole, which I understand but respectfully disagree with. These lists are a bit of a mess and I'd like to see the criteria be a bit less arbitrary (I have no idea where the criteria as used came from, but it's not too far off from the numbers I've usually seen definitionally in the relevant literature (~4, the quibble I mostly have is with the injury counts) so it's not that pressing), but a lot of notable lists are and that can be fixed. The "in the US" bit is of course not independently notable (well it might be, I can recall seeing several academic publications on US familicides) but it is standard practice to split articles per country based on size.
Per WP:NOTABILITY, 'Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.' The overarching set of "familicidal mass murderers' has been discussed extensively in academic literature, even if some of the individual cases have not;
Some "general overview" sources to look at:
Familicide: A Facet of Violence
Familicide: A Systematic Literature Review
Filicide and Familicide
Familicide, Case Characteristics PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I may respond, the issue isn't whether the term is notable but whether the list is notable. As you have said, sources do not define the topic in the way this list is arranged, so in my view that's a big red flag. Second, surely we'd all agree that there is something unpleasant about 'ranking' named killers in this way. Third, almost by definition there needs to be WP:OR in order to find killings that meet the criteria - for one thing is the whim of involved editors to decide what to include or exclude if the inclusion criteria is not following a definition in a source. If you could, I would appreciate you addressing these points, please. Thanks. JMWt (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 - It defines it in a slightly different way and even then some studies do have numbers closer to what the page uses. Fixing this is not hard so I don't think this is a big issue.
2 - I don't think that's a valid point for deletion. We have lists on lots of unpleasant things. Maybe make the lists unnumbered if that bothers you. I don't know.
3 - Not so much 'whims' as it is numbers, is it? The only problem I see with the list in that sense is that it has decided to a use a definition that is uncommon. Much like 'serial killer' has a varied definition, so too does mass murder. All the pages need to do is, IMO, to find a more common definition and stick with it. It's not like the definition used in the page is far off, so it wouldn't be that much of an issue to fix.
I don't think it's original research in the way you define. I think any original research problems arise from these lists, it's a definitional issue - as before, the individual items, with lists, "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". Any original research issue - if you have a list title called "List of newspapers in Uganda", and each individual entry is not mentioned in an overarching source discussing journalism in Uganda, does that make adding new entries to the page original research? No. The issue is with definitions and inclusion criteria, and to fix the pages in that sense there would have to be very few changes.
IMO, to fix the list, we should just set it at 4 killed or 6 killed (with one perpetrator, which I think used to be a list rule but people kept breaking it so it was removed). Forgot which two definitions are more common but I've seen those used most often as definitions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. For me there's a big difference in a list of newspapers in Uganda and this one. One could collate online/offline sources on Ugandan media with straightforward and accepted criteria as to what a newspaper is. In contrast, this list is of a very specific type of crime, with a specific number of victims and which, apparently, did not lead a police shootout. That's a) entirely arbitrary and b) means that one has to go searching the media archives to find crimes that meet those criteria. Again, I appreciate the willingness to engage. JMWt (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The police shootout thing is arbitrary and I have no idea why that is there, I will fully admit. I would guess it's as some barrier to incidents which start as familicides and then become public mass murders, which there are a few of, but it's not even effective in that case it's just arbitrary and in no way meaningful or recognized, so I understand your frustration. Should the list be kept that criterion should be removed
I respectfully disagree, as 'mass murder' is a pretty well discussed if specific type of crime, and mass murder of family members is a quite well discussed subtype of that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. There is nothing in the list that mentions anything about a "police shootout". This is not a criterium for inclusion whatsoever. Please cite the relevant paragraph, so I can see what you mean.
2. In the context of an encyclopedia it is irrelevant, if something is "unpleasant". I guess List of genocides is also unpleasant.
3. There's as much OR in this list as there is e.g. in the List of films. And of course one has to find stuff that meets the criteria in order to add it, but that is true for every list about every subject.
4. You can also collate online/offline sources about familicides and rampage killings, that's how this list came into being in the first place. These topics are well defined research subjects, so you should not have a problem doing so, if you actually bother to get into the topic. The caveat is that there is a grey zone that will always exist in such matters. (btw List of genocides is struggling mightily with this.) These lists circumvent this issue by focussing on cases that definitely and without a doubt belong into either category, and the defining factors in these types of killing are the number of victims and the perpetrators. (talk)] Lord Gøn (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete familicide may be a notable topic, but that does not mean that there are sources discussing incidents in the United States as a group, which would be the requirement for notability. (t · c) buidhe 07:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32067295/
    https://jmvr.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Out-of-Sight-Out-of-Mind-An-Analysis-of-Family-Mass-Murder-Offenders-in-the-US-2006-2017-Diaz-et-al.pdf
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7033703/
    https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1300&context=etd2020 And I could find more sources on the "In the United States" bit, if you insist, but even beyond that it's common practice to split by country. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just note that those papers do not specify or name the killers - and also (for example) one has 163 in an 11 year time period. So it clearly isn't using the same criteria as the WP page. JMWt (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The six-fatality threshold is one of convenience and exists to prevent recentism and escalating length. During my studies I have compiled a list of over 2000 mass murders in the United States between 1880 and 2015 of which about 33%-50% should be familicides. It is unfeasible that anyone would keep the list up-to-date and halfway complete, if the victim-threshold were to be lowered.
    2. That this list is not notable is simply erroneous, because newspapers and reasearchers compile and publish similar but usually much shorter lists quite frequently. This list, and all that are associated, serves a very specific purpose, which is to allow people to put such crimes into historical and global perspective. Before I started this project, the media and certain researchers made all sorts of wild claims based on little or no data; many of those nonsensical arguments have been put to rest since the data has been made available on Wikipedia.
    3. That newspapers do not always include the names of the perpetrators is irrelevant, because clearly the name of the perpetrator is important, not the least to make further research easier for anyone who wants to do so, but also for historical reasons. As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia does not adhere to the principle of damnatio memoriae.
    4. "I don't think we need this list" is not an argument. What you want to say is "I don't need this list". Maybe you don't find it useful, but many other people do, including researchers who work and publish in the field of criminology. e.g. here on page 69. (Lord Gøn (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    1. That's original research. Wikipedia is not a venue for you to publish the results of your study.
    2. That's not a reason to put the information on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a cloud service, an academic journal or a blog for you and your research.
    3. It is relevant when assessing the notability of the list. Given that you are doing something beyond the published work shows that this is beyond what is considered notable.
    4. No. What I'm arguing is that you are using Wikipedia in a way that it is not to be used. We are not a despository for an arbitrary collection of indiscriminate information. JMWt (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean by this logic writing any kind of standalone list article is original research, no? Relatively few lists on Wikipedia are simply copies of preexisting lists, rather they set out a generally-accepted criteria of a notable set of items (which I believe and have demonstrated above "familicide mass murders" satisfies) and list things that fulfill it. Basically every standalone list article would be "original research" by your standards. Wouldn't call it "indiscriminate" either. When the overarching concept or set is notable the list article inherits the notability in that sense PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. The key phrase above is this one: "Before I started this project, the media and certain researchers made all sorts of wild claims based on little or no data; many of those nonsensical arguments have been put to rest since the data has been made available on Wikipedia."
    User:Lord_Gøn is using Wikipedia to publish research in order to right wrongs. That's the role of an academic journal not an encyclopedia. WP:OR and WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:WIN. JMWt (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the purpose in writing this was, 15 years ago, it's on a relevant concept on a relevant set of items that are notable as a set. I believe Lord Gon's point in saying that wasn't about "winning", but about the fact that publications and researchers do publish (shorter) lists of what basically amounts to the same topic of the overarching list, strengthening this one's claim to notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You do know that even 15 years ago newspapers liked to publish lists of such crimes? And you do know that research literature including extensive lists of familicides precedes this list by a 100 years? What motivated me to put these lists together is entirely irrelevant. This doesn't change one iota that it was relevant back than and remains relevant today. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    1. The given threshold is not original research. It's addressing a number of problems that inevitably arise when you compile such lists. A father killing his wife and five children is a familicide. Every researcher and handbook will agree on this, so the case is clear. A childless husband killing his wife and two random people in the street, well, I guess people's opinion will be divided on that.
    2. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about topics that are considered relevant for the people on this planet. Lists of such crimes have been published for decades in newspapers, books and research articles. Therefore the topic is certainly of as much relevance as the List of Pokemon, Maral Torkaman, or the Sirhowy River.
    3. The great thing about Wikipedia is that it can go beyond what published works have done. Show me the published work that lists all wars or all football players? Does that mean the multiple lists listing wars and football players are not notable and that we should refrain from compiling lists on those matters? What about the List of curling clubs in the United States? Where is the notability in that? Has there ever been any work published on this topic? No? Does that mean Wikipedia should delete it, even though it is probably very handy and useful for people interested in Curling? And how is it any different what the list in question does than e.g. what the List of mass shootings in the United States does?
    Fact is, the topic is notable, the multitude of published material leaves no doubt about it. The fact that other such lists have been compiled and published many many times in the past proves that lists of cases of familicides and rampage killings are being considered scientifcally and socially relevant.
    4. "despository for an arbitrary collection of indiscriminate information" is not far from the defintion of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about everything and anything that is deemed relevant. Criminology is a relevant topic, familicides and rampage killings are important topics in criminology; compiling case lists is common in the discussion of such crimes. (Lord Gøn (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Notability questions of the list aside, what possible justification could there be for this table's default behavior to literally order the murderers by kill count, with numbered rankings, as the default sort criterion? This is extremely grotesque, and serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever. jp×g🗯️ 01:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete After looking into these articles in a bit more depth, there seem to be about a dozen articles of this type, constituting a gigantic walled garden of original research. None of the "inclusion criteria" for these lists are based on any sort of reliable sourcing, policy, guideline or even talk page consensus in most cases -- they seem to have just been made up one day. Here is an example: List of rampage killers (familicides in the Americas) says that "This list should contain every case with at least one of the following features: * Rampage killings with 6 or more dead * In all cases the perpetrator is not counted among those killed or injured." There's literally no source for this definition at all. They are all like this. The main article, List of rampage killers, has not only an introductory paragraph and a large editnotice, but a talk page FAQ of "rules" made up unilaterally by a single user in 2011 (there's no discussions in the talk page archive regarding a consensus on any of these things). To make things worse, these articles have almost all been tagged as consisting of original research since 2017. And not just that there are parts of them that are original research -- the entire lists are original research because the criteria for inclusion are completely made up! There's a discussion on the long-dead content noticeboard about WP:OWNERSHIP issues going back many years, which seems to have gone nowhere. But this is completely unacceptable as a Wikipedia article. I normally come to AfD to comment in favor of keeping articles, but in this case I think that a very large swath needs to be cut. jp×g🗯️ 02:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JPxG The reason why the list exists and behaves in such a way is that it is an older list, List of mass murderers by number of victims (made to mirror List of serial killers by number of victims, which I have also nominated for deletion, though it seems likely to survive when IMO it has the exact same problems that lead this page to being AfD'd) This much older version of the page was redirected and merged to the rampage killers list, which eventually acquired the weirder criteria. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, IMO, if the criteria are such an issue, I mean we can just change the definition to the one used by mass murder, all else failing (which is three not including the perpetrator according to most accepted definitions). Considering the criteria used now are higher than that (in most cases) we would have to remove very little. Provided the AfD on the similar serial killers list is closed as keep anyway, because beyond the criteria reasons which are fixable the only reason I can see to actually delete these articles is "it's in bad taste", which is not a valid deletion criterion (after all, who "the worst mass murderer" is is a question people ask, much like it is of serial killers, as was raised in that AfD) Or we could delete both of them for having that same issue, I suppose. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I rewrote the lead with citations using the commonly accepted definition accepted by reliable sources (3 dead minus the killer), and I am removing all incidents that do not fulfill these criteria (plus a few ones that looked dubious). Any more problems with the page you can see (once I fix that)
    Also I think these should all be retitled "mass killers" or "mass murderers" as that is 10 times over the more common term (I assume it was attempting to solve the very old spree vs mass killer terminology issue, but as in 2024 no one reliable uses the term spree killer that isn't really an issue anymore). The only unresolved issue is the "grotesque" thing, which I don't think stands as we have lists that are the same as this but of serial killers and no one seems to want to delete those. Also, WP:NOTCENSORED
    I'm probably also going to merge the home intruders and vehicular homicide lists somewhere because those don't seem to be independently notable or a defining subtype of mass murder, unlike familicides. Also I don't know why China is considered separate from the rest of Asia so I'm probably going to merge that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mass murders and rampage killings are not the same. A robber killing five people during a robbery is a mass murderer, but not a rampage killer. Gang members killing four members of a rival gang are committing a mass murder, but not a rampage killing. A disgruntled worker shooting up his workplace, killing two and wounding 20, is a rampage killer, but not a mass murderer. The scientific literature is making clear distinctions between these types of crime, so Wikipedia should, too. (Lord Gøn (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Made-up criteria from List of rampage killers

This list of rampage killers contains, for each category, the first fifteen cases with at least one of the following features: 

   Rampage killings with 6 or more dead
   Rampage killings with at least 4 people killed and at least ten victims overall (dead plus injured)
   Rampage killings with at least 2 people killed and at least 12 victims overall (dead plus injured)
   An incidence of rampage killing shall not be included in this list if it does not include at least two people killed.
   In all cases the perpetrator is not counted among those killed or injured.

The separate articles for the different categories have more extensive lists.

Criteria from Talk:List of rampage killers/FAQ, written entirely by Lord Gon
Q: What are the list's terms of inclusion?
A: As stated in the list's introduction, it shall contain all cases with at least one of the following features:
  • Rampage killings with six or more dead (excluding the perpetrator)
  • Rampage killings with at least four people killed and a double digit number of victims (dead plus injured)
  • Rampage killings with at least a dozen victims (dead plus injured)
(Note: Additional terms of inclusion may be applied in some of the sub-lists. Please see there for more information.)
Q: Aren't these terms a bit arbitrary?
A: It is true that the terms of inclusion are in a way completely arbitrary, though this would be true no matter how they would be formulated. Even in the scientific literature on the subject it is readily admitted that some degree of arbitrariness is unavoidable in this regard.
Q: What is their purpose anyway? Why not simply add all rampage attacks, no matter how high the number of casualties?
A: The purpose of the aforementioned terms is to keep systemic bias at a minimum. Would the threshold be set too low the list would be flooded with low profile cases from a very limited number of mostly western countries. Cases that adhere to the terms above have a halfway realistic chance of attaining national, or international coverage, even if they occurred in a part of the world that normally attracts limited to no interest from the media.
Q: What is the purpose of the W-column?
A: The W-column gives a basic description of the weapons used by the perpetrator. For a detailed list of the abbreviations used, see here.
(Note: Additional abbreviations and footnotes may be utilized in some of the sub-lists. Please read the respective section there for more information.)
Q: Why couldn't I find case XYZ in the list?
A: If you are unable to locate a certain case, this may have various reasons:
1. It has not been added, because it falls below the victims threshold, as defined by the terms of inclusion
2. It has not been added, because the primary motive for committing the crime was to facilitate or cover up another felony, like robbery.
3. It has not been added, even though it fits the terms of inclusion, and was not primarily committed to facilitate or cover up another felony. In this case you may add it yourself, citing reliable sources.
4. You haven't searched thoroughly enough.
  • Delete per as written and sourced, or WP:TNT. There's no definition of "rampage killer" in the article. There's no legal definition; it's used in shlock films and popular culture, but I'm not aware of its use in criminal justice, and I taught the subject for over a decade. I would not oppose a userfication, but I won't touch this hot mess. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term "rampage killer" is common in the scientific literature, e.g. here. That there isn't a legal definition is irrelevant. (Lord Gøn (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep Familicide is a notable topic, so it makes sense that we should have related lists. Inclusion criteria can always be changed. This source gives the following definition: "Familicide refers to the killing of multiple family members, most commonly the homicide of an intimate partner and at least one child." That's from the Journal of Family Violence, so this term is clearly used in academia. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article needs a rename and cleanup, not deletion. Familicide is a notable topic and this meets the criteria for a legit fork. A limited number of entries have wikilinks, but it is still a useful navigation aid for readers and passes under WP:CLN/WP:AOAL.  // Timothy :: talk  09:14, 2 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_January_26&oldid=1202946867"