Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< April 19 April 21 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎ . (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bombay Cricket Club[edit]

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

Now closed restaurant that fails GNG. Coverage is all local as per WP:AUD. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The appropriate WP guideline for this article, a business, is WP:NORG, which includes the WP:AUD criterion: at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. The sourcing in this article includes three substantive articles from The Oregonian, a newspaper with statewide circulation, as well as circulation in southern Washington state. This article easily meets the notability thresholds for both GNG and NORG, with the higher criterion of AUD. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG (disclaimer: creator). I'm satisfied with amount of secondary coverage in a variety of reputable sources. I would ask the nominator to have a wider discussion about AUD or specific sources (specifically The Oregonian) instead of mass nominating restaurant entries at AfD. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Contrary to the claim in the intro, this restaurant meets both WP:GNG and WP:AUD. Please use caution when nominating articles for deletion as AfDs take up community resources. Many more contributions are needed in the article space! gidonb (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: nomination ideas are invalid. Closure has absolutely nothing to do with notability, and source regionality is not a requirement. ɱ (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ . There were few delete arguments, else this would likely have leaned toward "delete", as keep arguments focused on "It's a..." rather than the appropriate availability of sourcing. However, at least some attempt at sourcing seems to have been made, so a future nomination may be able to determine if this is sufficient to actually demonstrate the notability of the subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2019 National Conference League[edit]

2019 National Conference League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested redirect. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet either WP:GNG or WP:VERIFY. Onel5969 TT me 10:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak / Moderate Oppose: Based on the fact that the 2012 season and 2013 season had existed on Wikipedia unchallenged before I have / currently am doing trying to update the competition to present day. That being said however, those pages aren't in great depth themselves so I would suggest that the outcome of this discussion is applied to all NCL pages from 2012 to present and also to the 2010–11 Rugby League Conference page aswell. If I'm being honest this is an issue across rugby league articles on Wikipedia and some continuity is desperately needed so it's why I want to keep all or bin all. However my preference would be to keep the pages, I don't feel the National Conference League page covers individual seasons in sufficient detail and adding the detail currently on each NCL season page to the main NCL will overload the page. Second as the majority of teams competing in the NCL have their own page, I think that Wikipedia should have some record of the competition results. Thirdly, football in England has individual season pages down to tier 9, so I don't think it's out of order for English rugby's tier 4 to have either. As for citations, I agree the pages needed to be better sourced, but that comes with building the article, and deleting it doesn't help with the building process. Mn1548 (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a very welcome addition to the coverage on Wikipedia of a leading UK rugby league competition. Rillington (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This competition is the top level of amateur rugby league in the UK, and is easily notable enough to warrant articles on individual seasons. Article needs improving, not deleting. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not a single valid, in-depth independent source has been added since the beginning of this discussion.Onel5969 TT me 10:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Trust this is sufficient to satisfy the nominator. J Mo 101 (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Agreed sourcing is the issue here. I can understand the delete due to failing verifiability but not due to notability. That being said sources are hard to find so if people could help with that, it would be amazing. Alot of rugby league article suffer with a lack of continuity which results in pages being created which should have been done along time ago and thus sources are harder to find. At the end of the day it makes no sense to only have articles for 2012 and 2013. But to reitterate what has been said, articles need improving, not deleting, as do alot of rugby league article on Wikipedia. Mn1548 (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep rationales discuss its subjective importance within its field but do not make an argument on how it would meet a notability guideline. Do sources show notability through WP:GNG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just as an aside, I have added a dozen references to this article since it was AFD'd, which should show that this article easily meets GNG. A quick Google search shows there is plenty of coverage for matches played at this level. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please review after addition of new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ . ✗plicit 23:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genoa (restaurant)[edit]

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

Now closed restaurant that fails GNG. Coverage is almost all local as per WP:AUD. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable restaurant, now closed. No sourcing that I can find, I don't think it was ever exceptional in some way, it was just another restaurant. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Genoa Building. It's not notable on its own, but can be used to improve the article on the notable building. SounderBruce 01:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SounderBruce: I'm going to be bold here and see if I can convince you to change your vote to keep. I have expanded the article significantly, I'd like to think beyond a point where merging to Genoa Building is an option (not to mention, the building is independently notable, being listed on the National Register of Historic Places). I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the overall amount of secondary coverage specifically focused on the restaurant. If helpful, I can share titles of ten or so in-depth profiles/reviews published by The Oregonian alone (assuming you have access to the archives). This Wikipedia entry still needs work, and I'm still folding archive newspaper sources into the text, but I'd like to see if you could revisit this discussion and specify your stance on available sourcing and thoroughness of coverage by reputable journalistic publications. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG (disclaimer: creator). The topic is clearly notable based on in-depth reporting and reviews in multiple independent and reputable major publications. Oppose merge to Genoa Building, as the entry should remain focused on the significance of the building and NRHP status. I've expanded the article significantly and I've not finished searching for books or even the Oregonian archives. Based on their nominations (and even some withdrawals), I think nominator is pursuing AfD before completing thorough assessments of available coverage. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it get any coverage outside of Oregon? LibStar (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not actually a requirement. If you're going to invent your own rules, you can expect them to be given exactly as much weight as they deserve. --Jayron32 19:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about 30 of the sources are from the same source "Eater Portland". LibStar (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So ignore those, if you choose. There are plenty of other sources. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to pass GNG easily. Well referenced, a variety of different source, no issues at all with keeping this. --Jayron32 19:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Oregonian is a statewide/regional source, not just local. It has statewide circulation, as well as in southern Washington, and has circulation numbers second only to the Seattle Times in the Pacific Northwest. There are therefore enough non-local sources to easily pass WP:AUD, since at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Slam-dunk keeper as the subject of multiple pieces of independently-produced coverage in publications of presumable veracity. Carrite (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes GNG with all those sources. PalauanReich (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Contrary to the claim in the intro, this restaurant meets both WP:GNG and WP:AUD. gidonb (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: nomination ideas are invalid. Closure has absolutely nothing to do with notability, and source regionality is not a requirement. ɱ (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes GNG Lightburst (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . Star Mississippi 13:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regulations.gov[edit]

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

Non notable website Amisom (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Websites, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't have a lot of experience with AFDs of official government websites articles. So I looked for places it was talked about in generally reliable sources that aren't just linking to a regulation on it. There are, of course, many links from government websites and newspapers about announcing new regulations to review. There has been some coverage of the site as a site, however: EPA adds Web 2.0 to Regulations.gov (a good source), Robotic rulemaking (a good source), Improving Regulations.gov (a good source), Aligning Public Feedback to Requests for Comments on Regulations.gov (seemingly a good source), and an example of using it for research Legal Research for UNT Students. Skynxnex (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article is a stub and there is minimal coverage of the topic - apart from the theregreview.org source I don't think any of the link above are useful. Converting this to a redirect to the government agency that runs the website would be my preference, but it is unclear what the subject of the eRulemaking article is, and General Services Administration is too high-level a topic to redirect. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the article is just a stub does not mean it should be deleted; as per WP:N “Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article” and “Article content does not determine notability.” Google Scholar has 16,700 hits for “regulations.gov” in quotation marks; however, many (or most) of these “hits” are actually regulations.gov comments rather than scholartly articles about the regulations.gov website, and a search of Google Scholar for case law makes it evident that even the use of quotation marks does not limit the query results to those referencing the website. There are only 2 district-court opinions referencing the phrase, “website regulations.gov” and no published cases referencing “regulations.gov website” or “regulations.gov site.” I would still vote to keep my own article. Bwrs (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A government website which plays a role in lawmaking and public comment and an absolutely terrible rationale to delete. Nate • (chatter) 01:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Due to the sources mentioned by Skynxnex. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 06:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mirela Sula[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to have attracted any substantial coverage in reliable sources as required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kajal Arefin Ome[edit]

Kajal Arefin Ome (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)

BLP Fails WP:GNG & WP:DIRECTOR.

  1. The individual was not considered an important figure in his field and his work was not widely cited by teammates or legacy.
  2. The individual is not considered to be the originator of any significant new ideas, theories or methods.
  3. The person's work - (a) has not been placed as an important monument, (b) has not been part of an important exhibition, (c) has not attracted significant critical attention, or (d) has not placed his work in the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum.

He is only known for a TV series, about which there is a separate article. Can be redirected to that article if desired. → Tanbiruzzaman 💬 17:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ . ✗plicit 23:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas D'Agostino Sr.[edit]

Nicholas D'Agostino Sr. (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 doesn't meet GNG. All the sources are obituaries, and are routine or minor/non-significant coverage. Suggest merging contents into D'Agostino Supermarkets that the subject founded and does have obvious notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Italy and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A by-lined obituary in the New York Times is a pretty solid indication of notability and far from routine. So is the entry in the Routledge Italian American encyclopedia. pburka (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pburka's comments on sourcing. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with D'Agostino Supermarkets: The only two IS RS are the Routledge encyclopedia article and the NYT Obit, which depends heavily on the Routledge article, so basically one encyclopedia entry. I don't think this is enough for a standalone article, especially when the content will fit so well into the target. This seems like an unneeded CFORK, only makes readers chase links. I tried to clean up the article and added inline citations.  // Timothy :: talk  10:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - boomers and Gen Xers in the NYC metropolitan area will remember his TV commercials and charity work. That and the Times obit push him over notability. Bearian (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between those wanting to Keep the article and those pushing for a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It looks like there are at least two sources providing SIGCOV of D'Agostino, and although their content is similar, I don't see that one depends on the other as one editor suggests. Hatman31 (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . Sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 13:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mothalum Kaadhalum[edit]

Mothalum Kaadhalum (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)

Unreleased streaming series. Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM. Sources in the article are primary, promo. BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  19:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It will be released in two weeks, another show will end and this show replaces it. leave it as placeholder if not you guys can move it so i can draft it and you guys approve it upon official release Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
as in move it to drafts Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article also exists as four(!) drafts (Draft:Vikram_Vedha:_Modhalum_Kaadhalum, Draft:Mothalum_Kaadhalum_(TV_Series), Draft:Mothalum_Kaadhalum, and Draft:Mothalum_Kaadhalum_II); the first is the most complete. All but the second were created into mainspace but moved to draftspace. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 21:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    yours has the wrong title though - vijay tv have it down as mothalum kaadhalum, not with vikram vedha:mothalum kaadhalum. if not create a redirect once the first has been approved for publication Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have not yet reviewed the article in detail, but a warning to the author is in order, and some of the excess drafts should be redirected; the target of the redirection may be decided on close. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    noted - i’m still waiting until next week for more info on the serial as it releases then. other editors are free to add any more information to strengthen the article so it doesn’t get deleted Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article ready for publication? The series has started streaming on Disney+ Hotstar and will air later on Vijay TV Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
any chance a redirect can be made to Modhalum Kaadhalum as well. Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
redirected to Modhalum Kaadhalum - if you want an Articles for Deletion debate - do it there. Series has been released, probably fails on sources. Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drafts problem ok now? Where do u suggest i redirect the article to? Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be ok now, why so much fuss over this Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How long does this take? I’ve literally sorted out drafts and the series is airing, sources are valid and there is proof of it being released on both yt channel and hotstar. Getting pretty annoying Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I rv'd the redirect, and CSD'd the new article. This and the issue with Drafts should be looked at.  // Timothy :: talk  03:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    speedy deleted two of them, they were both mine. have to wait for the others to be gone i’m afraid Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: source eval:
Comments Source
Database record and Promo: "Mothalum Kaadhalum Serial Cast, Vijay TV Wiki, Story, Release Date, Telecast Timings, Promo" 1.  "Mothalum Kaadhalum Serial Cast, Vijay TV Wiki, Story, Release Date, Telecast Timings, Promo". www.tellybest.com. Retrieved 2023-04-13.
Routine promo entertainment story "deets": "New TV serial ‘Mothalum Kaadhalum' to launch soon; deets inside" 2. ^ "New TV serial 'Mothalum Kaadhalum' to launch soon; deets inside". The Times of India. 2023-04-13. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-04-13.
Program schedule 3. ^ "PEOTV Star Vijay Program Schedules - Sri Lanka Telecom PEOTV". www.peotv.com. Retrieved 2023-04-22.
Routine entertainment promo, "Vijay TV will broadcast a brand new serial!" 4. ^ "மோதலும் காதலும்... புத்தம் புதிய சீரியலை ஒளிபரப்பும் விஜய் டிவி!". tamil.news18.com (in Tamil).
Routine entertainment news about series canceled 5. ^ "TV show 'Raja Rani 2' to go off-air soon". timesofindia.indiatimes.com.
Routine entertainment news about series canceled 6. ^ "ராஜா ராணி 2 சீரியல் விரைவில் நிறுத்தம்?". zeenews.india.com (in Tamil).
Primary, show page on Dinsey+ 7. ^ "Modhalum Kaadhalum". Disney+ Hotstar. Retrieved 2023-04-24.
Rouitine entertainment promo about actor in show 8. ^ "Sameer and Ashwathy to play lead roles in upcoming show 'Vikram Vedha'". The Times of India. 2023-03-25. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-04-13.
Routine entertainment promo about actors 9. ^ Bureau, MN4U (2023-04-20). "Star Vijay to premiere its new fiction show 'Modhalum Kaadhalum' on 24th April". MediaNews4U. Retrieved 2023-04-24.
Routine entertainment promo, "Vikram Veda New Promo" 10. ^ "தீ-க்கும் தென்றலுக்குமான மோதல்.. விரைவில் விஜய் டிவியின் அடுத்த தொடர் விக்ரம் -வேதா!". tamil.filmibeat.com. 2023-03-25.
Dup ref (see #2) 11. ^ "New TV serial 'Vikram Vedha' to launch soon; deets inside". timesofindia.indiatimes.com. 2023-02-17.
Launch promo From 24th April 2023 | Launch Promo 1, retrieved 2023-04-18
Launch promo From 24th April 2023 | Launch Promo 2, retrieved 2023-04-18
Launch promo From 24th April 2023 | Hero Promo, retrieved 2023-04-18
Launch promo From 24th April 2023 | Heroine Promo, retrieved 2023-04-18
Launch promo From 24th April 2023 - Promo, retrieved 2023-04-23
Article fails GNG and WP:RPRGM.  // Timothy :: talk  05:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you finally, took you a decade to reply. i’ll see what i can find then. Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
also there’s flaws how you lot just allowed ponni to still stay up with 5 citations and similar sources and this page is going to be deleted is mad. just let it slide like any normal person would. Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and i’m feeling some sort of prejudice because i’m new, either let ur vendetta go and help the article out or leave it Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to source analysis by Timothy. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, I’ll take the deletion. Note that this is stupid and most sources refer to the show in question. Promo still counts either way. But sure, go ahead and delete it Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Shakira fandom. ✗plicit 23:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shakira impersonator[edit]

Shakira impersonator (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)

falls under WP:FANCRUFT & WP:REDUNDANTFORK and fails to meet notability requirements per WP:GNG & WP:NOPAGE Everm4e (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Popular culture, and Latin America. Everm4e (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Shakira fandom. The case for stand-alone GNG is weak, but there is some content that would belong there in a dedicated section. Alternative redirect target to consider: Cultural impact of Shakira.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Colombia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the present article appears to be biased towards promoting the viewpoint of AlexanderShakifan29, who seems to harbor a vested interest in producing content that accentuates the importance of Shakira. A orish sentence within the article "In general, imitating Shakira is a fairly common practice in mostly Latino and Hispanic countries." lacks a proper citation, and the subsequent reference provided is merely a blog post pertaining to a drag performance. The content of the article seems to rely heavily on anecdotal accounts, tabloid publications, and unverifiable sources as a means of establishing Shakira's significance. In essence, the article appears to have scoured the depths of the internet to cobble together any semblance of information that would support AlexanderShakifan29's agenda of constructing an article dedicated to Shakira. Best – jona ✉ 14:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note that Shakira Wannabe created by the same user was redirected after an AfD. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Shakira fandom per above.  // Timothy :: talk  09:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Kohima#History. Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of Kohima[edit]

History of Kohima (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 redirected this unattributed copy back to Kohima#History but was reverted. No need to have a duplicate, nearly identical page for this. Fram (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Nagaland. Fram (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect as AtD Agree totally. No added value from original. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is no cause for having AFD discussion here. Kohima#History section will become too massive if continued to add more information. Article was created to expand the history of Kohima and to give a better detailed understanding of its history. Article can be improved with more sources. The Anonymous Earthling (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Having a main article on the history might be legitimate, if the "main" article had more detail than than Kohima#history. If the creator has an intention of expanding it soon, he should be given the chance. WP:DONOTBITE Peterkingiron (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Peterkingiron that there's nothing wrong with a spinoff article. Assuming that that is what's happening. If the process will take more that a few days though, the author should voluntarily move it to their sandbox and work on it there. Elinruby (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if above suggestions by Elinruby and Peterkingiron are followed within a reasonable amount of time and the author(s) identify when they will be done by, delete and move to sandbox if not. benǝʇᴉɯ 10:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above discussion. I just do not understand a valid reason in policy to delete. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bearian: AfD is also for disputed redirects. Just copying the information from article X to new article Y (without attribution to boot) and then abandoning it is not helpful and a good reason for redirection Fram (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Fram. A changed !vote. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kohima#History. There may come a time when a separate article is required, but we are not close that now. Better to let the article develop organically, splitting at this stage is just inviting a content fork. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ . ✗plicit 23:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Radio[edit]

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

This page has spent 8 years without any citations, and 13 years since last being nominated for AfD. Clearly nobody is interested in maintaining this page. I would have PROD but the AfD means I can't PROD. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Minnesota. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a number of potential sources linked from their webpage here [1] which doesn't address the interest but could indicate notability. I have not gone through them yet. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The materials on the Beat site, which are quite well preserved (a good thing) and one or two of which would qualify as SIGCOV, plus some coverage in Radio & Records: [2], suggest a keep. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure the station operator is, in 2023, cringing at having used the phrase "the Rosa Parks of radio" to describe his station back in 1997. Flip Format (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented above and in the article. They're reliable enough, with some in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: It looks like a short-lived pirate radio station which subsequently supplied a very temporary sustaining service to a bankrupt broadcaster pending the transfer of its licenses and then became a monthly show on a community radio station. Normally, I'd say delete, but it looks like it generated mainstream news coverage at the time, the article has been well researched, and so is good enough to pass WP:GNG in my view. Flip Format (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Ahmadi (Afghan footballer)[edit]

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

Can't find any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC even when searching in Farsi (علی احمدی). I did come across sources like Tasnim News but this is actually about Ali Ahmadi (Iranian footballer). I couldn't find any detailed news coverage about the Afghan footballer called 'Ali Ahmadi'. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Slim[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lady Slim (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)

Previous deletion discuss was a soft delete. User requested undeletion so here we are. Here is the original deletion rationale copied over from last AfD - References are non-English so this was tough. I went through them with Google Translate and the only source I see as reliable is BBC. With that said, I found nothing reliable in English and also asked for assistance] at WikiProject Azerbaijan but the only response(s) was from this] SPA (named Dragqueen Lady Slim coincidentally) and this new account with only three edits. CNMall41 (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello , recently this article was soft deleted and after contact the article was restored . Further, one of the admins on Wikipedia removed the afd template from the article. Not even a day has passed, but again the article is nominated for deletion. This article is about Azerbaijan's first and only drag queen, which already makes the topic of the article unique to Wikipedia, but most importantly, the topic of the article can be useful for learning about LGBT topics and rights in Azerbaijan.Futurolog21 (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Hi Futurolog21 so this topic is "unique to Wikipedia" but it isn't notable and has no coverage from notable publication that's why it was nominated for deletion.
Lililolol (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are notable publications and I have cited them in the article. But not just English-language sources. I found sources about Lady Slim in Azerbaijani, Ukrainian, Russian, Moldovan and even French languages and mentioned them in the article. Futurolog21 (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject of the article doesn't have any feats that show notability, being "unique" isn't an argument, UPE/SPA issues are also seemingly present. - Kevo327 (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i understand your comment, Armenian friend! Futurolog21 (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 23:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Cerio[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable artist and appears to fail WP:CREATIVE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CREATIVE and is an autobiography WP:AUTOBIO, with most of the unreferenced text added by the subject of the article, added on 28 March 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_Cerio&oldid=601622625 WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Chester Bennington. ✗plicit 23:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Chester Bennington[edit]

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

Not seeing the need for the fork, most mentions of his passing are short blurbs, this can be covered in the article about the singer. Not seeing that this meets GNG. It's a part of his story, but not a story alone. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Honestly, I'd be fine Merging it with Chester Bennington, but preferably, I'd keep it. Unlike what Oaktree b said, the articles weren't really blurbs (excluding the TMZ one [3]), most of them were full length articles that were:
  1. Reliable
  2. Secondary
  3. Gave significant coverage of the event detailed
  4. Independent of the subject
So while I don't see the need for deletion, I understand why one would delete it. That's just my 2 cents. AugustusAudax (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chester Bennington... IF the title is a likely search term. If not just delete. In either case, this particular article simply repeats almost word-for-word the text that is already in the "Death" section at Bennington's main article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chester Bennington unneeded CFORK.  // Timothy :: talk  10:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Houlihans of Garrycastle[edit]

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

No evidence for this hoax / WP:OR piece. See the talk page and User talk:Fram#Speedy Deletion nomination of The Houlihans of Garrycastle. for analysis of the sources and why this isn't a WP:V subject. Based on some loose mentions and a trail of breadcrumbs across sources of varying reliability, a whole story is fabricated. No reliable source which actually discusses the Houlihans, Lords of Garrycastle, seems to exist. Something like "Corcran O'Ullaghan, last Lord of Garrycastle (died in the Battle of Aughrim)" is based on thin air. The Barons of Garrycastle were the MacCochlans. Fram (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Ireland. Fram (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not only do the available/existing references not seem to support the text of the article, I can find no additional references to support a claim to notability under WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV. While some of the available sources (like these: [4][5][6]) confirm the existence of several branches of the Hoolahan family (and associate one branch with some Colgan cousins(?)) it requires more than a little OR/SYNTH to come to the conclusions we see in the article. Even if we were to accept that a family existed called the "Houlihans of Garrycastle" (and the sources would need significant interpretation to even come to that conclusion), where is the evidence of SIGCOV/GNG/notability? (I certainly haven't found any...) Guliolopez (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No evidence has been provided to verify the notability of the subject. The article is quite obviously not more than an original synthesis of misinterpreted sources. Borsoka (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails notability, not verified. Spleodrach (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- A very minor family of lords at most. It would not surprise me if Colgan was an anglicisation of Hoolahan, but that does not deal with the problem that they were all NN minor gentry. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . ✗plicit 23:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Lett[edit]

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

This is a three-sentence biography with no links from (or to) any other articles, no inline references and only a conclusory statement that its subject was "well known." Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Canada. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anyone listed in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography or another selective national biographical directory is notable. The DCB biography includes (among others) these references: Globe, 12 Oct. 1905. Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1898). J. D. Griffin and Cyril Greenland, “Psychiatry in Ontario in 1880: some personalities and problems,” Ontario Medical Rev. (Toronto), 47 (1980): 271–74. C. [L.] Krasnick Warsh, Moments of unreason: the practice of Canadian psychiatry and the Homewood Retreat, 1883–1923 (Montreal and Kingston, Ont., 1989). Here are some more references: The Canadian Encyclopedia article on Stephen Lett "Dr. Stephen Lett a pioneer in treatment of addiction". Wellington Advertiser. 2018-09-27. Retrieved 2023-04-20. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has a rather extensive bio here [7] and a mention in the American Journal of Insanity [8] confirming time and place of his work. Rather non-acceptable journal title, but it was the 1850s. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added two references. There's a lot of significant media coverage from the 1800s to today. Nfitz (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article definitely needs improvement, but there are good sources out there to improve it with. Bearcat (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sylk Magazine[edit]

Sylk Magazine (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 defunct online-only lad mag. The sources are all garbage. (Note that ref 2 (Fleshbot) is NSFW.) No sign of WP:NMAGAZINE or WP:NWEB notability. Cheers, gnu57 18:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hits in Gsearch for DJ Sylk, Silk Sonic... Nothin for this magazine. I suppose if it's defunct, there won't be any. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP. Their website triggered an anti-virus alert on my computer. I have commented out the pages with an editor note re the anti-virus alert. – S. Rich (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources to be found to pass WP:GNG. Current sources are two press releases and one blog that used to be apart of Gawker network. WikiVirusC(talk) 21:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The writing is promotional in tone and feel, and the magazine lacks significant notability. TH1980 (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Starting Over (TV series). ✗plicit 23:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Walker[edit]

Rana Walker (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)

Walker appeared on one season of a reality show. There was a flurry of repetitive articles when the show was launched, which all gave the same basic 1-2 sentence descriptions of her. I cannot find any significant coverage to support notability. Schazjmd (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect No coverage for the person, could redirect to the show I suppose. This is all I find [9], a one line mention of her in a paragraph about the show. I don't think she meets ACTOR, but I'm not sure if her role in the show counts as a major part or not. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a few mentions of her in the Starting Over (TV series) article, so you're right, could be a redirect. Schazjmd (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find much reliable, independent sources with significant coverage, aside from a few print newspapers. Multi7001 (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). There does not seem to be a good redirect target.  // Timothy :: talk  10:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect to Starting Over (TV series) where the subject is mentioned, though I wouldn't completely oppose deletion if consensus leads to that. CycloneYoris talk! 23:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep/restore as redirect‎ . I am withdrawing this AfD. I think that the appropriate result is status quo right now and to revert to the results of the previous AfD close which closes with It will be in order to turn the redirect back into an article when and if sources that this AfD did not consider are unearthed. It seems that I am going against that close by reverting to the article's previous state and then proposing for AfD. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 18:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Brannigan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kelly Brannigan (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)

Nominating for AfD without a strong opinion as to what should happen. There has been a bit of a dispute as to whether or not the results of the last AfD should hold including a comment on the talk page from bbny-wiki-editor. I don't have a strong preference on whether or not this should be kept with the content as is, have the redirect restored, or the page deleted, but figured that AfD would be the page to go at this point after the page history. TartarTorte 18:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Werewolf fiction. Underlying content can be merged through normal editorial channels. I considered a draftily close, but I found much of the reasoning to consist of EFFORT instead of a policy-based reason. Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lycanthropes in games[edit]

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

We already have Werewolf fiction for this, which includes games. Not only redundant but a collection of fictional minutia without context that fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE heavily. See also WP:CARGO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, Mythology, Popular culture, and Lists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep, merge to Werewolf fiction, or move back to draft. This was "accepted" as an AfC submission by User:Nagol0929, who moved the draft to mainspace without there actually being an AfC submission, or request to do so. Nothing about this article inherently violates inclusion in draft space, however. With respect to a potential merge, the entire content on use of werewolves in games currently at Werewolf fiction is one line: "In the online MMO game Fer.al, one of the playable avatars the player can unlock is a werewolf, which was previously a Season Pass exclusive". This does not serve the reader, as it certainly understates the presence and versatility of werewolf tropes in games. BD2412 T 18:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing to merge, really, though. The entire content of the video games part of the article is an indiscriminate list of games featuring werewolves. Even if you ignore the listicle part of this article and paraphrase the lead paragraph, it would offer more actual content (i.e. the idea that most werewolves in games are enemies) than merging anything in this article... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into Werewolf fiction or Restore to draft space and just put it back where it came from. There's a complex series of merges, redirects, re-redirects and copying without clear attribution here. Note that the original source and "repurposing" for this draft resulted from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons). Note, there WAS an AFC submission tag, so the statement in regard to Nagol0929 misses the mark a bit. However, it was submitted by someone who made no edits to the draft, and Nagol0929 seems to have spent less than 2 minutes reviewing it. That's not enough time to read this article, let alone check sourcing. The fact this was left in draft without an AFC submission suggests the page authors were not ready, even if they haven't immediately contested the apparently unilateral AfC acceptance. This topic has been AFD'd, redirected, draftified, undrafified, re-draftified over and over. The article heavily leans on primary sourcing and Valnet listicles. -- ferret (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the idea that this could be accepted and the time spent reviewing it shows that the user Nagol0929 does not understand the criteria, I would suggest a serious review of the fact that they are a member of AfC. Pinging @Primefac:, who approved them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies to User:Nagol0929 for misreading the history, but yes, this was not ready for mainspace and should not have been submitted or moved. BD2412 T 18:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I’m sorry I am relatively new to approving articles and this seemed like a good article to approve as it had a decent amount of content that seemed reasonable Nagol0929 (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Rereading it again I agree this should’ve stayed in draft space Nagol0929 (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bulk of this is old D&D articles from early in WP's history which have been removed over time. Rest us just indiscriminate lists...werewolves and other were forms are just part if the common elements of most horror themed games, so any list will be indiscriminate. On the other hand, at werewolf fiction, listing games where players can play as the werewolf (eg Zelda twilight princess. And the wolf among us).would be short and reasonable. Masem (t) 18:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve or merge to Werewolf fiction#In games - While this may need trimming, it is notable topic, based on the articles by Games Radar and Paste (both considered reliable according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, just as the Wired and TheGamer articles), as well as The Encyclopedia of Vampires, Werewolves, and Other Monsters, p. 131-132 and The Complete Idiot's Guide to Werewolves, chapter 13. Daranios (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Need trimming" is incorrect, it needs a full rewrite from scratch. That said, I can't find anything that would support a full article on the subject rather than just a subsection. What is there is very slim. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: Sorry, I meant to say needs trimming and expansion. I disagree with the "nothing to keep/nothing to merge" opinion: We have some material here which is based on reliable secondary sources and should be kept. That also includes the list of video games, which is not indiscriminate, as it is based on secondary sources which tell us that out of all appearances of werewolves in video games, these are noteworthy. You've stated yourself that the Paste article's lead has not been fully used yet. Complementary commentary is provided by the lead sections of the Games Radar and The Gamer articles. Together with the books (which can also source/expand the Werewolf: The Apocalypse section) this can provide a paragraph of commentary, which can be balanced with a reasonable amount of information based on primary sources in accordance with WP:ALLPLOT. And voilá, we have a stand-alone article. Now I don't think that has to be a very long article, so I am also not fundamentally opposed to a merge, but I confidently expect it to be beyond stub-length. Daranios (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy‎, and Fictional elements. Daranios (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Werewolf fiction#In games - Even the sources mentioned by Daranios above aren't really about the full scope of the topic this article is purported to be about (they're all very specifically just listicles of werewolves, in specific, and only in video games). There just is not enough sources on this topic in specific that would warrant it being split out of the main Werewolf fiction article. I'm also not opposed to just Returning to Draft as suggested above, if the editors who have been working on said draft would prefer that. Rorshacma (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would certainly be my preference over redirection. BD2412 T 00:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Rorshacma: This verdict ignores the two books, which are neither listicles, nor limited to video games; rather, they also also include role-playing games, board games and the party game. Daranios (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, so it does, I apologize for missing them (though, again, they are both specifically on werewolves, which would fit much more neatly into the Werewolf fiction article than being used as a spinout, in my opinion). But, overall, I think this is kind of a moot debate at this point, as the editors who have been working on the draft have rather explicitly stated that they did not intend for the draft to be moved to article space at this time, and would like it returned there - I think that is clearly the best result for this particular article right now. Rorshacma (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Rorshacma: So just for the sake of completeness, almost all sources, including our Werewolf article, treat the terms werewolf and lycanthrope as interchangeable. The main exception is D&D. So on the one hand I think it's important to explain that exception (just like Werewolf fiction explains that it also covers "other shapeshifting therianthropes"), on the other hand I think sources talking about werewolfs in games in my view cover our topic of lycanthropes in games, it's just a matter of nomenclature. Daranios (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to draft: This was clearly a work in progress that no one asked to be moved to article space, and it was moved there without explanation or any response that I've seen. BOZ (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Werewolf fiction per Masem, with whom rationale I fully agree, except that I don't think we need a hard delete. Btw, I'll note that Lycanthrope redirects to Werewolf, and there is no 'werewolves in games' section or article. This is just ORish attempt to synthesize an overview of how werewolves and like appear in games. Fun but WP:NOTTVTROPES. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Masem; oppose redraftifying. This appears to be an end-around to the delete decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons). Tracing the convoluted moves and cuts/pastes finds the original history of this article at Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons), of which the current article is virtually an unmodified recreation (borderline speedy G4), if not for the barest gesture at a video games list at the end. If this is redraftified, I would send it to MFD as a stale draft---if not for getting "accepted" at AFC (without the creator's request), the draft would just about qualify for speedy G13. It had a grand total of 4 non-bot edits in 13 months as a draft. Draftspace is not indefinite free hosting for deleted content. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I consider the proposition that there is "the barest gesture at a video games list" to be an affront. I put a lot of effort into compiling that fully-sourced list. There are potential additional points of interest in the text of several of the sources. Werewolves Within could be a section all its own, considering that the game was popular enough to be made into a movie. BD2412 T 21:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • While all entries are sourced, it is a plain list of examples, and the sources ([10][11][12]) are not exactly high-quality ones seeing as they are all listicles. TompaDompa (talk) 03:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TTN and Chetsford: pinging members of the de facto previous AFD who have not yet weighed in. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, redraftify, or redirect Basically, any outcome but deleting it entirely as argued by Axem Titanium. The way we deal with NN things (that is, notability is the only significant issue) is to draftify them, or redirect them, as alternatives to deletion. Sure, this is pretty "meh" right now and clearly needs more work, but that's not a reason to delete it in lieu of any ATD. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redraftify - BD2412 has contibuted a lot to this draft in the past year and is advocating for returning it to draft space, and I don't see any rationale to deny him that. Even if deleted/redirected there is nothing stopping the content itself continuing to simmer as a draft, so the least confusing outcome for everyone is a straight redraftify. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redraftify, clearly a work in progress by BD2412 with potentially demonstrated notability in the future with better sourcing. Oppose deletion as it would be less constructive than moving back to drafts. Merko (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bangladesh Premier League venues[edit]

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

No evidence that this independent list passes WP:NLIST, a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. The tables themselves are unsourced, could not even find a statistical source from Cricinfo which collects the full list of used venues since 2012 altogether. The venues have not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, and didn't receive significant coverage about hosting the BPL matches. There don't look to be high quality sources such as newspapers making reference to the number of matches at venues i.e. venue X held its 50th BPL match today, which would be one basis for claiming notability of this list. RoboCric (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ . ✗plicit 23:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DxO Labs[edit]

AfDs for this article:
DxO Labs (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)

UPE is an issue, but the larger one is I cannot find evidence they meet N:CORP. Lots of social media and forum noise, but nothing in depth. French article is of no help as the sourcing isn't there either. Star Mississippi 16:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:NCORP repeatedly refers to "organizations or products". There is ample evidence in the existing footnotes to the article that DxO's products are widely reviewed by reputable sources; there are many more reviews that are not currently cited. The natural place to group the DxO products is in the DxO Labs article; it would be silly to have a separate article for each of DxO PhotoLab, DxO FilmPack, etc., all of which are individually notable. I agree that the company has almost no independent coverage, but that's not surprising -- it's a private company. --Macrakis (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They filed for bankruptcy in 2018 [13], [14] and their gadgets have reviews about them [15], seems ok. Forbes is a senior contributor, which I'm not sure if it means they're on staff or not. Regardless, there are plenty of articles about the company and the stuff they made. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable producer of photo editing software that is well regarded and widely reviewed in reputable and notable publications. Klausness (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . ✗plicit 23:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy S Plus[edit]

Samsung Galaxy S Plus (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. XDA Developers is referenced in the article as a source, but XDA Developers are user generated. Nothing is close to notable about this article. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I Think if it gets expanded and gets reliable references this would become a good article. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found a site with more info about it: https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_i9001_galaxy_s_plus-3908.php PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GSMArena isn't notable. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deletion is not cleanup, article could be improved. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes I agree If it gets expanded and gets reliable references this would become a good article. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AndroidCommunity and TechRadar reviews establish notability. Garuda3 (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject meets GNG. Although the article does need to be significantly improved as others have pointed out. CycloneYoris talk! 23:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of kings of Síol Anmchadha. Whether others need to be processed per Peterkingiron's comment is a discussion for another location Star Mississippi 13:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Giolla Finna mac Uallacháin/Coulahan[edit]

Giolla Finna mac Uallacháin/Coulahan (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)

Largely unverifiable. We seem to have one source[16] which mentions him in one sentence as the son of a "king" (one of the many, many kings at that time). No reliable sources that he had any descendants, never mind the ones mentioned. If kept, it should be moved to a much better title than this hybrid thing, but I believe it should either be deleted or at best redirected to e.g. List of kings of Síol Anmchadha (strange, how among all the Madudhan/Madadhan there, there suddenly is this one Mac Uallachain who seems to be unmentioned in more recent books). Fram (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Ireland. Fram (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of kings of Síol Anmchadha. As noted by the nom, the content is largely unverifiable and there is little/no indication that the subject had much if any notability (independent of the role/title held). Which seems to be "King of Síol Anmchadha". As an AtD, just redirect to the article on that title/role. Guliolopez (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Objection I am far from sure whether Síol Anmchadha was an important enough polity for each king to require an article. My impression is that there were dozens of petty kings in Ireland at this period and one list for each is probably enough, as we probably have little more than genealogical information on any of them. However, if the article on one of them is to be removed, we ought probably to remove them all, by redirecting to the list, not merely one of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect fails GNG, to List of kings of Síol Anmchadha per above.  // Timothy :: talk  10:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of kings of Síol Anmchadha as an ATD. Redirecting there is certainly a better solution than deleting. CycloneYoris talk! 23:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Insufficient sources to establish that WP:NBIO is met. Happy to reconsider if other papyrus scrolls are found :) MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 03:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Babai Sen[edit]

Babai Sen (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)

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly referenced as passing WP:CREATIVE. The primary notability claim here is that his films exist, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him in reliable sources -- but the only "reference" actually being used as a proper footnote for any of the body text is simply the exact same article copied and pasted from another wiki (a user-generated source that cannot support notability), and the article otherwise just contextlessly lists a bunch of further sources which are all either short blurbs that don't add up to enough coverage to pass GNG, or glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't otherwise about him, which don't help to establish notability at all either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • G12 speedy delete see revision history. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy deletion has been declined. My new position is delete as I cannot find anything on any of the works this guy has produced, let alone himself. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Aintabli (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin note: the copyvio content was removed and I have purged the affected revisions, which was all but three. G12 does not apply to what remains. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Premier League players[edit]

List of Indian Premier League players (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)

Don't need a complete list of every player every to have played, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and the fact that it's just trivia. Most teams have their own articles for players e.g. List of Chennai Super Kings cricketers, there is no reason why we need this article which is a less easy to understand version of that data, when the team lists are perfectly fine, and in line with cricketer lists we have for other non-IPL cricket teams. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and undue length Googleguy007 (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, we already have lists for cricketers by cricket teams. Delete it per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST. RoboCric (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is why we have team categories, folks. Nate • (chatter) 18:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply too big to be reasonable. Individual lists for teams (which are fine) already exist, so this list is major overkill. StickyWicket (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have categories for players from separate teams, a list like this is going to be enormous with the number of players who've played in the competition. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Already too long and can only increase. Need to have more selective criteria than this. Rupples (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Premier League venues[edit]

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

No evidence that this independent list passes WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. The tables themselves are unsourced, and I imagine will be very difficult to fully source. The main coverage of venues seems to be that in 3 seasons, matches were played abroad (which is already covered in those season articles, and is not a justification for having a list of every venue), and there don't look to be high quality sources such as newspapers making reference to the number of matches at venues i.e. venue X held its 50th IPL match today, which would be one basis for claiming notability of this list. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, Lists, and India. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant violation of WP:NOTSTATS and fails WP:NLIST. The venues have not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, and didn't receive significant coverage about hosting the IPL matches. The only source in the article is from the IPL official website, which also doesn't list the full list of venues used since 2008. They just listed the venues for this season and the venues will change every season. Even the statistical websites like Cricinfo or CricketArchive doesn't have separate lists for IPL venues. RoboCric (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete largely per Robocric. No independent coverage of the stadiums as all being IPL venues, and the information about each stadium is not sourced on the page. The stadiums can (and probably should) be grouped together somewhere, but I think a category or a template is most appropriate. Frank Anchor 15:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NLIST. All of this can be covered in the main article page. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 12:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of regional bus routes in Skåne County[edit]

List of regional bus routes in Skåne County (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)

Per WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTTRAVEL. Just a list of unremarkable bus routes in one particular region. Ajf773 (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 12:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seun Awogbenle[edit]

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

I can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article are about other topics that are authored by or mention the subject and BEFORE fail to show anything meeting IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject direct and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV, game news, database, promo.  // Timothy :: talk  05:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. The subject lacks in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Although the article contains tons of reliable newspapers, the subject worked for all of them.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 12:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nachtstern[edit]

Nachtstern (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. Barely any independent sources related to this, and not even given a mention in the city's article, so not sure why this network of night routes is any more important than for the rest of the city Ajf773 (talk) 10:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 12:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdurrahman Abba SheShe[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced promo piece on a non-notable surgeon. Sources cited are passing mentions, appointment news, and primary sources, and a search finds nothing better. Has been back and forth between drafts and main space, and declined several times at AfC, but author insists on publishing. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NACADEMIC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify‎ . ✗plicit 12:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Afework[edit]

Theo Afework (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)

Searches did not turn up any in-depth references from independent, reliable, secondary sources. There are two pieces in the current article, from 13th Man Sports and Northern Tribune, but neither source looks to be reliable, containing simple postings with no editorial oversight. Fails WP:GNG Onel5969 TT me 09:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Return to Draft I created it as a draft and another user has moved it to mainspace twice. RedPatch (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return to draft per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify/userfy - not yet notable but I see no reason why RedPatch can't continue to work on this outside of mainspace until notability can be demonstrated, considering that they are not the user that keeps moving this article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return to draft per Das osmnezz. 2001:569:74E3:4000:E86E:3A26:2A4F:ED4E (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft per author reuqest, article is sourced only to a databases, mentions in game articles, and routine sports news such as trades. Fails BLP, GNG, BIO. There are no IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed lots of promo, but nothing that meets SIGCOV. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  05:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - not currently notable. GiantSnowman 11:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return to Draft as per creator's request - teenager who has never even warmed the bench for the worst team in the lowest-ranked fully professional team in the nation. And ping User:Mtaglion who kept moving it to mainspace. WhyUser:onel5969 did you not notify them, as you reverted their first attempt, and AFDed after the second attempt? Nfitz (talk)
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 13:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eriko Goya[edit]

Eriko Goya (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)

Was draftified in hopes of improvement. 2 primary sources were added and it was moved back to mainspace. Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 09:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We can keep it in draftspace until more sources show up - she also has caps in the highest league of Japan which helps towards her case. User:RossEvans18 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Young player with ongoing top flight pro career in league that gets coverage. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails BLP, GNG, BIO. There are no IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. Source eval:
  • Interview, primary, not IS for notability >> 1.  "【サンフレッチェ広島レジーナ全選手名鑑WEB版】呉屋絵理子選手／ケガからの復帰。コンディションをもっと、もっと。". targma.jp.
  • Database generated profile >> 2. ^ "Eriko Goya Sanfreece Hiroshima Regina Profile". sanfreece.co.jp.
  • Database stats >> 3. ^ "Tokyo Verdy Beleza vs Sanfreece Hiroshima Regina - 4th December 2022 - Soccerway". int.soccerway.com.
  • Name mentioned in list. Fails SIGCOV >> 4. ^ "呉屋絵理子／不屈の彼女。". targma.jp.
WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  05:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Keep - played in major league and can be considered a keep but better if it is improved in the draft space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxxyOswald (talk • contribs) 20:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC) — MaxxyOswald (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. I was unable to find any significant coverage during a search. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we don't create articles on young athletes with an ongoing careers because there might be significant sources sometimes in the future, we create articles when there are already significant sources about the athlete. And while she might play in a notable league, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. All things that certain editors know very well but routenly try to circumvent. Alvaldi (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to footballer Hiroto Goya as an alternative to deletion, per WP:ATD. Have added information about Eriko Goya to her brother's page, with citation. She has one newspaper article to date counting toward notability – although the top part of the article is based on a Q&A interview, there is one dense paragraph of biographical content at the end (plus a few editor's notes throughout). Once more coverage appears about her, the redirect can easily be converted back into a standalone article, because the edit history will still contain a copy of the article as it currently stands. (The Japanese Wikipedia article about her seems to cite a lot of press releases, plus her own blog, in addition to the Sanfrecce magazine interview at targma.jp, which I agree is a primary source.) Cielquiparle (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing !vote to Weak keep in light of additional sources found per the IP editor below, which I've added to the article. The Okinawa Times profile article (accessible for free if you register) is actually the strongest of the lot. Combined with the Chūgoku Shimbun article, it's enough to establish notability per WP:BASIC, and it's a bonus that it's focused coverage in two regional newspapers in different parts of the country. (It's a "weak" keep because it was a borderline case; it still feels a bit early in her career as she only recently made her top-flight league debut, and it would be nice if there were one more piece of coverage...but this often happens, also with young male footballers.) Cielquiparle (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:, see this above. Young player with ongoing top flight pro career in league that gets coverage. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . Star Mississippi 13:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Polzhuber[edit]

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

He competed at several Olympic Games but didn't win a medal and a WP:BEFORE search didn't otherwise show notability. Not an obvious redirect as he competed at more than one Olympics and in more than one sport but Austria at the 1968 Summer Olympics might be best as it was his highest finish. Suonii180 (talk) 08:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Times[edit]

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

Non-notable newspaper, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMAGAZINE. Most of the sources in the article are primary sources; the two which are not are from Evangelicals Now and about former editors, rather than the newspaper itself. I can find very little sourcing elsewhere that goes beyond passing mentions. The newspaper is treated as some length in this one book but the book is published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing which has questionable reliability. Similar material by the same author also seems to have been published in two journal articles. Since these are all by the same author, the best that they amount to is one source for the purposes of GNG. Further, these publications are all primarily focused on analysing the depiction of Muslims in British Christian media, so I'd say it is a stretch to call it significant coverage anyway. WJ94 (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Christianity, and United Kingdom. WJ94 (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Upon reviewing every domain on the web that has mentioned the subject, there are no reliable, independent sources with significant coverage. The scientific articles linked by WJ94 may be the result of the author's own choice to investigate low-credible independent print media or research misconduct. Sources stemming from Vatican State-run businesses such as the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church are not independent. Multi7001 (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I accept that the publication does not meet the threshold for an article in Wikipedia, but it would be useful for this information to be preserved somewhere. May it be transferred to, say, wikichristian.org or Theopedia.com, listing attribution on the talk page there? Likewise Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evangelicals Now. – Fayenatic London 15:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those wikis you mention are completely unrelated to Wikipedia and, to be honest, it is not our job to provide content for them. If they want to write article on these publications, they are free to do so but that shouldn't interrupt our processes. Further, I think there would be issues with them directly importing material from Wikipedia since to do so would require attribution, which in turn would require keeping the history of the article (if I have interpreted that correctly). WJ94 (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is not a mere internal church magazine. The fact that it has lasted over 50 years with successive editors and offices in a succession of places. Evangelicalism in Britain covers a variety of churches belonging to various denominations (or none), but it is a relatively coherent movement. I would be happier if there was some indication of the level of circulation. Clearly this is not a hoax. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Who said it was a hoax? It certainly exists, the question is of notability. JMWt (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not debating whether evangelicalism is notable - it clearly is. This does not mean that a publication related to evangelicalism must be notable. There are a lot of publications which have lasted a long time, had multiple editors, and been based in a lot of places but are not notable. Are there specific criteria of WP:NMAGAZINE which you think the Evangelical Times meets, or alternatively do you have any independent reliable sources which cover it in significant detail? WJ94 (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peterkingiron Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. All information must be cited from reliable, independent sources. The article in question is more than 1,780 words long, and not one reliable, independent source with significant coverage is cited. I did a quick review of a database that shows all domains on the web that mention or link to it and could not find anything. Furthermore, the article reads as promotional as a result. It should have been subjected to speedy deletion when it was patrolled. Multi7001 (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly appears to be notable. Long-running and widely distributed publication. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not, as keeps being erroneously stated, a "church newsletter." It is a newspaper which reaches across denominations. Its core edition reaches across Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England and its International Edition has a global reach. Further "Evangelicals Now" is not an affiliated organisation but a rival production hence very much an independent source. It is reasonable to encourage further citations for the Evangelical Times Wikipedia entry. Gdjonda (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: tag instead for More citations needed to give reasonable opportunity to demonstrate notability for this long-standing Evangelical Christian publication, which has been a highly-regarded source on historical, theological and current affairs topics for Evangelical Christians for nearly 60 years. It is widely cited in that respect, which could be evidenced better. There is demonstrable influence and standing evident in the many content citations to be found in Wikipedia's articles alone on significant Christian figures, authors, topics, institutions etc (it is relatively easy to find these using a google wiki domain filtered search). In fairness neither can the notability of the authors writing for the publication, currently and in the past, be overlooked and this could also be much better evidenced by an update to the current edit. Angelageary (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite bizarre reasoning. Are you really trying to tell us that any magazine which has high regard amongst it's readership is by definition notable on en.wiki?
I dispute that it can be considered to be a highly-regarded source on historical, theological and current affairs topics for Evangelical Christians for nearly 60 years. For one thing, it holds an ultra-conservative view that the vast majority of Evangelicals reject, as shown by the tiny readership compared to the total number of Evangelicals.
If you disagree with this assessment, kindly offer some third party reliable sources that support your position. JMWt (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An apparent ad hominem attack on my ability to reason is not constructive, particularly alongside the assumptions made about political views. not a relevant 'assessment' to this discussion. Angelageary (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not ad hominem. JMWt did not say that you cannot reason, but that they found the reasoning you offered bizarre. It was an attack on your argument, not you. The point remains - do you have reliable independent sources you could offer which would support your claim that this publication is as important as you claim it is? WJ94 (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG. 32page monthly church newsletter. Unsourced and the above keeps have provided no sources. Keeps want more time, but this has been unsourced since 2011, 12 years is enough. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS.  // Timothy :: talk  12:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)  // Timothy :: talk  12:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its a newspaper and it has seven references and has always had some references Atlantic306 (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually it has six sources, not seven (one is a duplicate). But since you brought them up, Here they are:
Comments Source
Primary author founded subject, Brief mentions when talking about individuals, no SIGCOV. 1. Masters, Peter (2008). Men of Destiny. London: Wakeman Trust. ISBN 9781870855556.
Duplicate of above 2. ^ Masters, Peter (2003). Men of Purpose. London: Wakeman Trust. ISBN 1870855418.
Tribute about a contributor, no information about subject, from an affliated organization, fails IS Evangelicals Now". www.e-n.org.uk. Retrieved 2021-07-27.
Obit about a contributor, no information about subject, from an affliated organization, fails IS Evangelicals Now". www.e-n.org.uk. Retrieved 2021-07-27.
Primary 5. ^ "Missionary extraordinary – An appreciation of Bill Clark". Evangelical Times. 1999-01-01. Retrieved 2021-07-27.
Primary 6. ^ "News – Evangelical Times editors". Evangelical Times. 2009-08-01. Retrieved 2021-07-27.
Primary 7. ^ "Roger Fay retires after 11 years as editor, succeeded by Mike Judge". Evangelical Times. 2018-12-18. Retrieved 2021-07-27.
Which of the above show that the subject has multiple independent reliable sources with direct and indepth significant coverage of the subject?  // Timothy :: talk  20:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't access the two book sources, perhaps you could give a link for accessing them. They seem to be 2 different publications. I agree about the other sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The man who founded the Evangelical Times wrote the two books cited. Furthermore, the author of those books is Peter Masters, whose notability as a public figure is questionable because he is only best known for working with an independent business in central London that operates similar to a Vatican State-run faction. The page should have been terminated when it was patrolled years ago. Multi7001 (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep comparing it to something from the Vatican? Please stop, that has nothing to do with this discussion. JMWt (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The man who founded the Evangelical Times wrote the two books cited. this means they fail WP:IS and cannot be used as sources showing notability. Noting this because I have updated the above source eval table.  // Timothy :: talk  08:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, there is one other book cited in the article - this one. However, there does not appear to be any mention of the Evangelical Times in this book. One further source was added yesterday, an obituary for a previous editor. This source is not about the Evangelical Times and mentions the newspaper only once in passing. WJ94 (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google books is possibly not as reliable as pulling a book off the shelf and looking up the page reference. Please See the actual mentions of 'Evangelical Times' highlighted in this page scan from the book, as cited. I link it here: https://ufile.io/v5awndpt as there doesn't seem a way to add an image to this comment box. Angelageary (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we should be scanning pages from books in discussions here and I'm not downloading it even if it is ok. So maybe you can describe the contents and the "mentions" - bearing in mind that "significant coverage" means more than a couple of sentences. JMWt (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm finding quite a lot in Google Books (although there are a lot of false positives, too). It is a "leading British evangelical newspaper" and the "organ of principled separatism". See also the significant coverage here. StAnselm (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Re your very last link above, can you explain how it is "significant"? As far as I can tell there are a few passing mentions which don't amount to more than a paragraph in total. What am I missing? JMWt (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to Google Books, there are 37 mentions throughout the whole book. StAnselm (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... and this amounts to significant coverage how, exactly? JMWt (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you have seen the list on Google Books - I suspect not, otherwise you would not say "a few passing mentions". The author makes a sustained argument concerning the way ET deals with Islam. Along with three other newspapers, this is what the book is all about. And yes, it is definitely RS: it is the author's published PhD dissertation from the University of Bristol. StAnselm (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, the four newspapers seleted as representative of "British Christian News Media" are the Church Times, The Tablet, Evangelicals Now and the Evangelical Times. In light of this, Evangelicals Now should not have been deleted either. StAnselm (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now read several other related papers by the academic in question. What you say is true as far as it goes but I'm not really convinced that using a minority conservative publication as a representative of "Christian media" when making an argument about Muslim perception is really suggestive of notability nor meets the GNG. For sure that academic thought it was a useful analysis, but if someone had done the same for a neo-Nazi publication, would we then say it (the theoretical neo-Nazi publication) was notable?
Even if we accept it as a RS which shows the acceptable level of notability, that's just one source. JMWt (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: it would be ironic if this page was kept on the basis that an academic found it was (I think it is fair to say) pushing a generally negative line on Muslims. JMWt (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "ironic". And yes, if there was a neo-Nazi publication used as the basis of a PhD thesis - yes, it would probably make it notable (though I take your point about a second source). It's just that such publications are usually small, fringe, and generally ignored by everyone else. StAnselm (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean ironic in the sense that the author of the source clearly thought the line tajen by the ET was destructive and this isn't a part of the page as it is written. I doubt many who are !voting keep would be happy if the page reflected that pretty much the only reason it was notable was that it spread negative views on Muslims. I don't believe that a neo-Nazi publication studied briefly in a PhD thesis would be notable on en.wiki. At best it might be mentioned on a page discussing the history of neo-Nazi publications. JMWt (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't have a problem with that, myself - but I would say the other reason it is notable is the part it plays in the 1966 split, as described by Iain Murray - and that is reflected in the article. StAnselm (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well the split happened for sure and it was well publicised by DML-J and his acolytes. The question then is whether this (pretty small-beer) split that was only important to those who respected DML-J's ultra-conservative Evangelical views and whether a tiny publication which really does operate as a doctrinal newspaper (which I appreciate is an oxymoron given many involved consider their churches to not be a denomination) is important. I say no. For sure it can be a part of David Martyn Lloyd-Jones and possibly a separate page discussing the split but this publication really had a minor role outwith of those directly involved. JMWt (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are mentions, none have significant coverage, some fail IS RS.  // Timothy :: talk  20:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The last book is the one I mentioned in my nomination statement (I'm not sure if the link I posted worked properly). It is published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing which is dubious as a reliable source. It is listed on Beall's List of potentially predatory publishers; see also the comments here. As for the other two, the first is published by Xlibris, a self-publishing (and therefore unreliable) publisher. The second has, as far as I can tell, only passing references to the Evangelical Times (Google Books is quite limited but it is in my local library; if I have the time I'll try to get down there and have a look for myself). WJ94 (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't pick up the Xlibris publication. StAnselm (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've got hold of the Bebbington book from the library. I can find only one reference to the Evangelical Times on page 267. The Federation of Independent Evangelical Churches was immeasurably strengthened by Lloyd-Jones's support; the Evangelical Movement of Wales in 1967 permitted churches disenchanted with their previous denominations to affiliate direct; and The Evangelical Times was launched in the same year as the monthly organ of principled separatism. This one brief mention does not constitute significant coverage. WJ94 (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If I had to narrow it down to two sources giving the subject a GNG pass, it would be Faimau (discussed above) and Iain H. Murray in his biography of David Martyn Lloyd-Jones (vol. 2, p. 537f) which is not available online. StAnselm (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that's really helpful. As I've said above, I'm not convinced of the reliability or significance of coverage for the Faimau sources, but they do seem to be the strongest candidate for GNG. Although I have not got access to the Murray book, I'm finding it hard to see this as significant coverage from what I have seen. Further, our article on Iain Murray states that he worked as David Martyn Lloyd-Jones's assistant for three years, which puts the independence of the source into question. I agree that this is an edge case, and I can understand why some might see this narrowly passing GNG but, to my mind, the sourcing isn't sufficient to establish significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. At best, I'd concede there's maybe one source (Faimau) that meets this description. WJ94 (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iain Murray is a very well-respected historian (at least in Reformed evangelical circles). Even if he's not independent of DML-J, he's still independent of ET. StAnselm (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it depends what you mean. DML-J and Murray are/were close, and they are very likely are/were close to many of those who write and publish ET. The Conservative Reformed Evangelical world is small in the UK.
Has Murray ever written for or been involved in the production of ET? Do we know for certain even of that? Edit: the answer to the last question appears to confirm what I thought - he is close and has written for ET 1
at JMWt (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ET has had over 600 authors since 1967, and like Murray, many respected authors, reformed academics, theologians and thinkers within the domain of reformed evangelicalism are amongst them. Surely by that logic, no one who has ever contributed to a periodical or journal can be validly referenced in relation to it? Angelageary (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Individuals and entities connected to the subject are not independent reliable sources; they may be used for basic facts in an article, but non-independent sources do not show notabilty. I think the Iain H. Murray bio mention above will end up being a brief mention, so I requested a copy from the UCLA library. // Timothy :: talk  09:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can't use people who are closely associated with a publication as sources to show notability as per WP:GNG.
So yes, there are questions of independence if someone writes a history of a publication who has previously written for them or is closely associated with it. The history may be very well written, the issue not that the author thinks (in this case) ET is important, the purpose of the WP:GNG is to avoid simply egging up things by repeating things that non-independent sources say about things they are closely associated with. JMWt (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I don't think we have necessarily included contributors to a periodical in the category of those closely associated with it - only editors and publishers. StAnselm (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Using editors and publishers is still a problem, they are not independent reliable sources.
NPOV is an issue with these sources; I know you don't consider this a problem currently because the sources under discussion have a positive bias towards the subject, but imagine if some starting adding negative sources, perhaps a disgruntled ex-contributor, or someone associated with them that now views their positions differently. Using these sources is not acceptable because they are biased and Wikipedia does not distinguish between positive and negative POV sources: it's all considered inappropriate sourcing. Sources must be neutral (see WP:NPOV for Wikipedia's definition of neutral), reliable WP:RS and independent WP:IS. This is why sourcing guidelines are critical.
Insisting on high quality independent, reliable, neutral sources protects subjects and the encyclopedia.  // Timothy :: talk  16:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that NPOV has anything to do with the sources - which almost by definition cannot be neutral JMWt (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 12:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens of the Czech Republic[edit]

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

Not enough coverage to show it passes GNG or VERIFY. Nagsb (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 12:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ . (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PetaPixel[edit]

PetaPixel (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 gets a few mentions, but I can't find any in-depth coverage from a reliable, independent, secondary source to show that it meets either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 12:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Photography, and Websites. North America1000 12:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we use them as a source nearly 400 times, and there's no shortage of references to them in reliable sources (note the current page's further reading for some examples). The problem appears to be finding sources that talk exclusively about them, but this is a challenge of them being referenced so frequently but often for only a paragraph or two in part of a larger story. For example, The New York Times has referred to them ~40 times, The Washington Post ~10 times, etc. At some point all that "minor" coverage, IMO, makes the subject notable. As an aside, WP:CORPDEPTH gives examples of "trivial coverage", and most of the coverage I'm finding would exceed the examples given (thus being non-trivial). For example, their interview with Camille Lepage, which was referenced by FOX News (in article currently), The Washington Post, and other major media outlets. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Meets WP:CORPDEPTH by virtue of being a stub, but still a complete one and barely passing the bar of not being brief (but it's pretty close). There is significant coverage and notability by virtue of WP:GNG as it has been covered by reliable secondary sources and has been included in a number of citations and articles. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.Delete A news site mentioning the subject in passing is a passing mention, it might be considered an RS but doesn't pass COREDEPTH. There isn't an significant coverage in the article currently, not here, and I can't find any searching online. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that WP:NCORP - Examples of trivial coverage explicitly states it is not exhaustive, but the type of coverage I see for PetaPixel is significantly more than the trivial examples given. It's not merely quotes, they're citing them as a source for their tertiary content. It's also rather quick to go from article creation to deletion in less than a month in what is very clearly a WP:STUB. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no discussion or analysis of the company in any of that, just passing mention of their reporting. The timeline of article creation has nothing to do with notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "passing mentions" listed there are much more benign than the type available in our sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck my comment given the source found by Skynxnex, Keep. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. PetaPixel is pretty widely cited throughout photography press archived on archive.org, a few examples: If you're bored with your camera read this book, f11 magazine: Petapixel is the first port of call for many photographers with articles, photographs, reviews and good worldwide gossip., and Amateur Photographer. And mainstream press: A photo-editing AI thought this blurry photo was actor Ryan Gosling's face and fairly high praise when using it as a source When Pictures Are Too Perfect, WSJ: PetaPixel, which has been out front in chronicling the McCurry case and other Photoshop controversies, reported on .... And the interviews are referenced in textbooks: Psychology, 2nd edition, publisher Oxford. And here's a write-up about PetaPixel in a magazine Amateur Photographer: Nothing short of a portal to a wealth of photographic knowledge, filtered and available at click of a mouse, PetaPixel is the brainchild of computer programmer and photography enthusiast Michael Zhang, and photographer and writer Jessica Lum. The blog is updated regularly and covers a lot of ground, which is impressive for a site that began only two years ago. and book Blogging for Photographers: Not as math-intensive as that description might make you think, Petapixel gets a lot of coverage in the photo blogosphere for its impressive mixture of up-to-date news stories and well researched perennial posts with lots of great advice for photographers of all skill levels., and, to me, a surprising number of cites/references in books on Google books. Skynxnex (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable and long-running photography web site, often used as a reliable source in Wikipedia articles. Klausness (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of CareerTech centers in Oklahoma. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient. I'm not going to protect the redirect, but strongly caution TulGuy to stop canvassing and other disruption. Star Mississippi 13:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Autry Technology Center[edit]

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

Redirect removed, so here we go. Originally sent to draft and then abandoned & deleted. No more notable now than then, no SIGCOV in RSes presented and none on search - all self-referenced or super-local sources. Tagged for advertisement, and with reason. Redirect to List of CareerTech centers in Oklahoma or Delete and SALT - your choice, folks... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely don't understand the complaint that somehow this educational institution is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. It has 22,724 students this year alone; and, since it has been around since 1967, I would guess it has a few hundred thousand alumni. Yes, it's a technical school, so the graduates aren't winning Nobel prizes-- although I did find one New York Times best-selling author-- and are instead doing things like fixing air conditioning, repairing cars, and providing nursing services-- in other words, the kind of jobs the rest of us depend upon someone else doing. I can find plenty of educational institutions on Wikipedia (high schools, small colleges, etc.) that have less of an impact, but which nevertheless seem to merit a page.

I also don't see how you can find fault with the article itself. It runs several hundred words-- certainly not a "stub"-- and cites 19 different sources, only 3 of which are from Autry itself. I can provide a list of existing pages on educational institutions that are stubs and/or contain 3-5 references, and do not understand why a much-harsher standard is being applied to Autry. Further, the complaint that it reads like an advertisement is something the prior deletion caused. The page certainly didn't read like an advertisement when it was deleted the first time, on the purported basis it wasn't "notable" enough. So, now, after material has been added to show how innovative and extraordinary the institution is, we get the complaint that it reads like an advertisement. Feel free to delete whatever material you believe "unacceptable" as the price for keeping the rest of the page in place, but please do not create a "Catch-22" where the institution is not "notable" enough to have a page unless it can be shown to be extraordinary, and then complain that the material showing it as extraordinary must cause its deletion as an advertisement. Sorry, this sound like casting around for an excuse, any excuse, to delete a perfectly legitimate page.

If I sound a little frustrated here, that's because I am. Enough is enough. I'm sure Wikipedia has appeal procedures, and I will certainly be utilizing them if this page is deleted again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TulGuy (talk • contribs)

TulGuy, it would be much more helpful if you could point to WP:THREE sources that make your case for meeting the general notability guideline. The above keep rationale reads like a case study in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and is unlikely to persuade as-is. signed, Rosguill talk 20:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the input; but, as I understand the complaint, it is not about the quality of the article or whether it is properly documented-- it's about whether the subject is worthy of a page. Anyone can read the facts stated and, finding any of them convincing, look at the associated citations to make sure they support the statements made. The problem is the reviewer has looked at the facts and still isn't convinced this is a worthy topic, and nothing seems to be changing his/her mind. So no, with reference to the article you cited, I have no reason to believe this reviewer is trying to meet me halfway, which is why this will end up on appeal. But let's say I'm wrong. If the reviewer would like to indicate what the problem is, I will be more than happy to make changes to the article. Think it reads like an ad? The material about the innovative programs and the winning of awards (all true) was added specifically to address the complaint that the subject wasn't notable enough; so, that material can be easily removed if that fixes the problem and gets the page published. If you ask me, it is sufficient to show notability by saying this is an accredited institution of higher learning [1] with 22,724 students this year alone [2] and which has even been specifically cited by a 500-person employer as the reason they chose the institute's hometown for their location of their business. [3] That shows a substantial institution which is doing its job and is per se notable. I have been around Wikipedia for years, and we all know that many, many subjects which are far, far more trivial have nevertheless ended up with a page. That's why I'm frustrated. (Perhaps the solution is to assign another reviewer, who can give me some useful feedback and we can get this resolved?)

References

  1. ^ "Autry Technology Center". Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation Services. 7 September 2013. Retrieved October 29, 2022.
  2. ^ "Tech Center Profiles". Oklahoma.gov. Retrieved April 3, 2023.
  3. ^ "SW Bell planning new site in Enid". AP Wire Service (assessed on TulsaWorld website). Retrieved April 3, 2023.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS discussion territory

Bearing in mind that Autry has 22,724 students, and the article in question has 19 citations, only 3 of which are from Autry itself, I invite anyone interested to check out these existing Wikipedia pages for comparison:

Kennebec Valley Community College 2,500 students, No citation of any sources, 1 external link to the official college website

Davis Technical College 6,000 students, No cites, 1 external link to the official college website

Aiken Technical College 13,400 students in credit and non-credit courses, No cites, 1 external link to the official college website

Tillamook Bay Community College Student population not indicated, No cites, 1 external link to the official college website

Lake Area Technical College 2,600 students, No cites, 2 external links including one to the official college website

Utah State University Eastern Student population not indicated, 1 cite

Northeast Community College Student population not indicated, 1 cite (from the college)

Great Falls College Montana State University Student population not indicated, 1 cite (from the college)

Hazard Community and Technical College Student population not indicated, 1 cite (from the college)

J. F. Ingram State Technical College 543 students, 2 cites (inc. 1 from the college)

Mid-State Technical College Student population not indicated, 2 cites (inc. 1 from the college)

Wiregrass Georgia Technical College Student population not indicated, 2 cites (inc. 1 from the college)

Southern Arkansas University Tech Student population not indicated, 2 cites (inc. 1 dead link)

Community College of Rhode Island Student population not indicated, 3 cites

Western Dakota Technical Institute 1,324 students, 3 cites (inc. 1 from college)

Tarrant County College Student population not indicated, 3 cites (inc. 1 from college)

Orion Technical College 300 students, 3 cites (inc. 1 from college)

Northwest College Student population not indicated, 3 cites (inc. 1 from college)

Motlow State Community College Student population not indicated, 4 cites (inc. 1 from college)

Community College of Aurora 10,000 students, 4 cites, (inc 1 archived from the college and 1 dead link)

Southeast Arkansas College 2,200 students, 4 cites (inc. 2 dead links)

Pierpont Community and Technical College 3,000+ students, 5 cites (inc. 2 from college)

McDowell Technical Community College Student population not indicated, 5 cites (inc. 2 from college)

Truckee Meadows Community College 13,000 students, 5 cites (inc. 3 from college)

And these are just what I found from a casual search. May I therefore be forgiven for believing a completely different standard is being applied to the Autry page?

Further one might assume, given the fact that we have been thrown into a discussion of the notability of higher education institutions, that lesser garden-variety educational institutions like high schools don’t get Wikipedia pages—right? Actually, let’s pick a state at random, like Ohio. Ohio has a List of high schools in Ohio (just like all the other states do) that immediately lets you know that garden-variety high schools do indeed get pages—lots of them. I didn’t count them up, but Ohio has 37 high schools listed from just the counties in Ohio that begin with the letter “A”. Here are the first 12, being all the high schools listed for Allen County:

Allen East High School

Bath High School (Ohio)

Bluffton High School (Ohio)

Elida High School

Delphos Jefferson High School

Lima Central Catholic High School

Lima Senior High School

Perry High School (Lima, Ohio)

St. John's High School (Delphos, Ohio)

Shawnee High School (Lima, Ohio)

Spencerville High School (Ohio)

Temple Christian School (Lima, Ohio)

Only 3 of the list even mention enrollment, being Delphos Johnson (303 students), Lima Senior (1,500) and Temple Christian (226). My favorite listing is Perry High, which states in its entirety, “Perry High School is a public high school located just southeast of Lima, Ohio. It is the only high school in the Perry Local Schools district.” Informative. The average number of citations for this group is 4.25. To be clear, I’m not dumping on Ohio high schools, but I am saying that applying this to get a sense of the general standards of Wikipedia reviewers on the subject of notability, Autry with its 22,724 students is unquestionably notable, and the article written about it is more than adequately informative and documented.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just being around for a long time isn't notable here in Wiki. I can't find anything beyond routine listings of stuff happening there, the normal goings-on of this type of institution. "Semi-modern" institution, it's not even 100 years old yet. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of CareerTech centers in Oklahoma. Many of the other Oklahoma vo-techs are redirected so this seems to be the consistent option. The advertisement tag is appropriate and the article seems to violate WP:NPOV. The message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oklahoma which alerted me of this discussion is even more non-neutral. That being said AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. However, as other editors have suggested it needs to have adequate sourcing that meets WP:GNG. No objection to recreation if article can meet this threshold, some apparently do. I would argue against salting as of this time, but maybe a page protection for the redirect.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the standards are not being applied fairly to all schools, I vote to keep the article. I'd love to see what rubric is really being applied here that allows so many other schools to stay up, but this particular one is nominated for deletion. The advertising style language could certainly be rephrased for a more neutral tone. If dead colleges, such as Phillips University for example, which also served the same community can have a page, why can't an active educational institution have one? Many public libraries have pages on Wikipedia as well. I come from the inclusionist perspective, and long established educational institutions seem inherently notable. As to the number of students and so forth, just because it serves a smaller community doesn't mean it isn't notable. This is a bias in favor of large cities that I have seen a number of times on Wikipedia which is used to delete articles. Thousands of people have passed through this vocational technical school even if the students may not have been particularly notable themselves. Kiddo27 (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note Tulguy is WP:Canvassing other users. [18], [19], including this line "I don’t know if he hates Oklahoma or what" on WT:Oklahoma.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He also asked me here User_talk:WhisperToMe#Autry_Technology_Center WhisperToMe (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd have to look at the secondary sources to see if they are independent of the subject. I would imagine that there would be enough but I'll need to spend some time to do so first. And as stated above Tulguy requested that I look at the matter. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a source here: "Aviation Training Classes Canceled". The Daily Oklahoman. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 1995-05-16. p. 8. - See clip. This discusses a set of classes, funded by a grant, that ended up being canceled. I want to see if I can find more sources like this. Also, this source is from the state capital, Oklahoma City, and also I believe "super-local" sources are generally acceptable to source content about non-profit educational institutions. I also notice the Newspapers.com references for Oklahoma newspapers covering this topic seem to only date to 1995. I could contact the Oklahoma City newspapers to see if they had 1970s and 1980s articles discussing this institution. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sent a message to The Oklahoman and hopefully they'll find 1970s-1995 archives about this institution. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to the list article cited previously. Institution fails WP:NSCHOOL and per ATD, a redirect is better than deletion. Note the keep !votes here are overwhelmingly WP:ILIKEIT votes that conflate perceived importance with notability. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think that the "Aviation Training Classes Canceled" shows a real possibility of notability. I just need to wait to hear back from the newspaper to see if there are more sources which can develop this angle. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The newspaper sourcing looks fine to me. Yes they're local sources, but they're normal newspapers and should meet WP:RS. The rest of the sourcing is less than ideal. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Lacks sources to meet WP:GNG. Also, poor form by Tulguy to be WP:CANVASSING votes here. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

East Carolina University Greek life[edit]

East Carolina University Greek life (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. The mere fact that data can be collated does not mean it should be. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and North Carolina. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a very useful list, allowing students and administrators to easily search whether a fraternal organization or honor society is present on the campus. The AfD prod is arbitrary. The Fraternity and Sorority Project has a number of volunteers working to improve these pages, and has an active sub-project to improve this specific type of list page, showing all such organizations on a campus. I do appreciate the alert that more work on this page is needed, and I agree with that assessment. As part of our methodical review and effort to improve all these pages we have developed four models for such lists, applied depending on the size of the Greek system and campus. I also note that List pages have a different criteria for notability discussions on Wikipedia. Jax MN (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIR. It's an unnecessary content fork from an extremely bloated article that also seriously fails WP:NOT. It isn't Wikipedia's function to serve as a user's guide to the school and the mother article reads like marketing material for the university. There's no need for a merge or a redirect as the material is already in the mother article and titles beginning "List of" are not going to provide useful search results. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: There are more than a million articles in Wikipedia that have some variation of "List of" in their title. The search engine is designed to pull up these articles. If you begin entering "East Carolina University" in the search box, this article comes up in the top three suggesions. In addition, Default Search is added to many articles to enhance search results. For example, an article like List of Delta Delta Delta chapters has "Delta Delta Delta, list of chapters" as its default sort. List articles are typically supplemental content to another article and are linked through use of the Main template or the See Also template. With academic institutions, it is normal to have a seperate linked articles such as a "List of alumni" or articles that focus on significant academic divisions or various sports.
    Rublamb (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are absolutely correct. So if it's redirected to the university article, the university's article will come up first, before the redirect. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NLIST. Wikipedia is not a directory service or student guide for activities at. I'm sure ECU provides those services to its own students. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOTDIR does not apply here as it refers to excluding "simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit." However, this is not a simple list of Greek letter organizations, but also includes status (active or inactive) as well as the date of charter and range of operation, if applicable. The list is organized by national affiliation and type of group, providing contextual information. Furthermore, charter date and inactive organizations are not typically included in a university's directory of possible student activities. Thus, this is more correctly viewed as an aggregate of historic and current data that is not found elsewhere as a single list.
WP:NLIST says: "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." With this in mind, I find that this article does meet the criteria for notability because 1) it is about a subject that is already accepted as notable (East Carolina University) and 2) it is a grouping of notable organizations. Also, I found 2 appropriate sources: Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities and Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities. WP:NEXIST says "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Therefore, it is fine to keep this article even though it currently lacks appropriate citations because these sources exist and can be added later.
So back to the original premiss that this content is not appropriate for Wikipedia. My review of two dozen randomly selected articles about universities shows that lists of a college's Greek letter organizations are usually present, whether as part of an article or as a stand-alone list such as this. That means the majority of editors working on acdemic/education articles have agreed that Greek org content has a place in both these articles and in Wikipedia. (And we have the opinion of @Jax MN from the fraternity project). I know there are different opinions as to how long a list needs to be before it jumps from a main article to a "list of" article, but this list seems reasonably long to me. An editor above indicates that this content is duplicated in the main article--it most definitely is not and, therefore, shoud not be deleted before being merged. I say let the fraternal WP determine whether it is best to merge this content back into the ECU article or improve this article. Rublamb (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't past WP:NLIST or WP:GNG, I don't see any independent secondary sources that discuss this specific list of Greek Organizations together out there. Tertiary sources like almanacs or directories of all fraternities in American aren't even focused on ECU Greeks. In a version of Baird's Manual[20] I found online they are discussing the entire fraternities not specific chapters, and they would list the schools that had chapters. The almanac seems to follow Baird's style. WikiVirusC(talk) 18:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Cannot find independent sources? Here are two:
Fraternity and Sorority Life office, at ECU.
University of Illinois Archive (~Baird's Archive) listing all academic Greek Letter organizations and North American campuses.
Wikipedia rules regarding Deletion require competence, and elaborate on this, saying that "This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved." --This AfD appears arbitrary, and ill-supported. With respect, PROD-ing this article is a dart, tossed by editors without much - or any - engagement in this well-managed category and Project. I don't mean to be snarky: Some of you might be experts at Australian Rules Football. I'd never dream of PROD-ing some of the articles you curate from a position of knowledge on that topic.
This article is supported by those with expertise in this category, who support, monitor and update this and similar articles. There are dozens of citable articles or books noting the Greek Letter Organizations present at the ECU campus, and many thousands of articles about each of the individual societies or chapters themselves. This list, not subject to consensus rules on notability (thus GNG and NLIST aren't applicable), is nevertheless consistent with predicate, is monitored and updated regularly, and provides an easy and consistent way to get information about which groups serve the campus.
The PROD is completely unnecessary. Jax MN (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your confusing WP:PROD with WP:AFD. Either way, every article is subject to notability rules, every article is subject to WP:GNG. You linked NLIST with piping text of "not subject to consensus rules on notability" but the first sentence of what you linked says "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables.". In regards to your two linked sources, the East Carolina University page on Greek life is not independent of Greek Life at East Carolina University, and definitely isn't a secondary source. For the second link, I already address Baird's Manual/list in my previous comment. We would need sources that discusses ECU Greeks organization as a group, not a source that list Greek organizations, and happens to mentions ones that are at ECU. WikiVirusC(talk) 19:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, I did conflate WP:PROD with WP:AFD. This was clearly an AfD. The rules for notability differ somewhat for List class articles. Cordially, I'll point out two errors on your part. First, the school is independent of its Greek Letter chapters, which operate either under its approval, or fully independently, thus these ARE independent sources. A mis-behaving or problematic chapter can easily be removed from a campus, should the school determine it does not meet a necessary bar of operational quality. Second, the older Baird's reference you provided is only one portion of that massive reference. I included the more recent Baird's Archive as a new reference on the main article, linking to the list of all Greek-letter undergrad organizations on that particular campus. Jax MN (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability for list is different yes, but I was just stated that it was inaccurate in what you said that this list wasn't not subject to consensus rules on notability, it is. I understand the School is independent from the Greek organizations. Them being able to remove a chapter, isn't relevant to it's independence of source articles. What we mean by independent is they aren't the topic of the source. So in regards to a Greek organizations/life at the school, a source from the school wouldn't be independent the same as a source a Greek organization wouldn't be. The almanac/online directory would be independent. WikiVirusC(talk) 23:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The name is confusing for non-Americans. Greek doesn't mean from the country of Greece, but fraternal societies. There is a world outside of the US that doesn't get these references. Always try to keep articles properly explained for a world audience. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - A reasonable complaint, however, deletion is not the cure. Such usage (Greek letters) is common for all such societies in the US. I added an EFN to avoid confusion. Jax MN (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I agree that a name change would be an improvment. Rublamb (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Agreed. An effort to find a consistent naming convention for the articles in Category:Lists_of_chapters_of_United_States_student_societies_by_college for those that only contain greek letter organizations (and related). (so Farmhouse doesn't change what the name is, but Paintball club does).Naraht (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This needs references and there are none given. I'm not looking for sources for a dozen sororities individually. As it stands, it's a list of things with no proof why we need to know about them. Why does it have African-American sororities, why are the other ones notable? Where did all the dates come from? This could all be invented, with no sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Your 'references' complaint is reasonable, however, deletion is not the cure. I fixed the problem by adding two significant references, adding a short (expandable) history section, and a section intro that denotes the various governing councils under which each of these groups operate; others may use these references to review that these are not 'invented'. Note that the University recognizes groups at its own discretion. Thanks! Jax MN (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've since added several additional references that discuss multiple chapters, governance, and discipline. A mixed bag, but all are good sources. As to your comment, "Why does it have African-American sororities?", I don't know what you mean by that. We don't judge worthiness of the groups, only list that they are there. Jax MN (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I addressed the lack of sources above. Just because you do not feel like reviewing a source, does not negate its existance. According to WP:NEXIST we don't delete an article if there are potential sources that can be added at a later date. According to WP:NLIS, the creator of a list such as this does not need to restate why a given group is notable as that information is stated in a linked article. Also, the provided dates are most likely listed in the linked article; another indication that this article can be fixed. If you are curious about why African American sororities exist, follow the link. That is how linked lists and Wikipedia work. Rublamb (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to reinforce my delete vote above, this is a list of national organizations that have branches at this school. WP:BRANCH should also apply. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I am so glad you mentioned WP:BRANCH as I had not come across it before. One of its points applies nicely to this situation: "If an embedded list becomes too large for the parent article, consideration may be given to splitting out as a stand-alone list only if there are reliable sources dealing with the list as a topic, as with Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities supporting List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters and colonies. If an embedded list is too large, but is not notable enough for a stand-alone list, then consider trimming." Now we have confirmation that Baird's is, in fact, considered a reliable source for this type of list, the remaining issue is whether the list should be merged into the parent (ECU) article or if it is large enough for a stand-alone list/article. As I have stated above, to me, this list seems reasonably long to split off. However, I can also understand others believing the the list should be merged into the ECU article. Would some of those who suggest deleation consider the option of a merger? Rublamb (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Merger? I don't think so. Those of us working on the Fraternity and Sorority Project have identified four types of templates we use, when listing the various Greek Letter organizations on North American campuses. Sure, smaller "Greek systems" may be listed within a college's article; we do that sometimes. But East Carolina's array of these organizations - including Honor and Professional chapters - is much too varied for such a treatment. It would lengthen the article far too much. Thus in keeping with the WP:BRANCH rule, we created this as a standalone, linked page. Jax MN (talk) 05:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    you might want to read WP:BLUDGEON too. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Anon, I don't see any budgeoning here.
    Summary - Fraternity and Sorority Project contributors have improved the page, correcting the fact of *no* references to add now ten seventeen of them, both the necessary secondary sources and those somewhat-related campus-based sources that add detail and are allowable when solid secondary sources are in place. The article is scheduled for further updates, noting predecessor and dormant organizations per the model we have developed. These are useful for a variety of readers, not just current students. (My aim, for example, is to provide a resource for genealogists seeking information about the organizations that family members had been part of, in previous generations.) The basic history is now written, and awaits further improvement as Wikipedia is a work in progress. I assume good faith, and hope that the !delete voters aren't just piling on. Wikipedia is not served well if our aim as editors is merely to !delete, !delete!, !delete. Jax MN (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Referenced now, and size of the article on East Carolina University does not affect this article unless the article has been trimmed to the point where it makes sense to bring it back in.Naraht (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY does apply, since most of the "contextual information" offered here is unsourced or derived through WP:OR. The best sources are local news reports declaring when sororities have been shut down for drug-related issues (basically routine crime news) and a 1990 indiscriminate American Greek life directory. Other sources are from ECU itself, which lack independence. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    :Comment: Not to bludgen, but this is not a directory list as it provides added information. Yes, this acticle could use additional sources, but as stated above, I have found acceptable sources for that information. I agree that the ECU sources do not meet the standard for notability, but the guidelines are that if appropriate sources exist, the article remains because it can be fixed. Baird's, which you are refer to as an "indiscrimate American Greek life directory", is speciically mentioned in WP:BRANCH as an example of an appropriate source. The data that you refer to as original research is, in fact, completely documented in the potential sources--it is not original research, but was added in the article without a link to its source. As a result, your suggestion to delete based on WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:OR, and a lack of sources falls flat. Rublamb (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Was said earlier that Baird's does not discuss East Carolina University's Greek life/orgnaizations at all. It doesn't even list ECU's Greek organizations together. It only talks and discuss the specific Greek organizations, and happens to mention under the specific Greek Organizations a list of Schools that have chapters, some being ECU. It is why WP:BRANCH says Baird's is appropriate for List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters and colonies, as it discusses Phi Kappa Psi and it's chapters/history in detail. See page 270-282 of this edition. The University of Illinois Online Almanac, does lists ECU's Greek organization as one of over 1000 schools in that database. But it doesn't discuss them at all, it only briefly describes ECU and the different names it went by, and has a single line about the Greeks there that is "Fraternities and sororities occupy houses", then it lists them. I'm not saying 13 pages of coverage is needed, but 5 words doesn't demonstrate notability. The issue isn't having sources in article, the issue in notability. Even if someone was going to consider that one fact that they occupy houses as significant coverage, where is a second source to demonstrate notability? Article currently has local news talking about a covid update at houses, a few incidents of frats being banned, a housing profile of one sorority, and a handful of primary sources from the school. It's not about the information in article, it's about the notability being established for this list. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I totally get your line of thought and appreciate your review of the sources. However, I believe WP:NOTESAL directly addresse your concern. "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." (Sorry to repeat this quote). The key here is "in general". In this example, we have a notable institution, a list of notable organizations, and a source (the Almanac) that links them. Baird's comes in to play because it verifies all of the chapters and dates which, as you had indicated in your initial comment, lacked sources. Baird's also address your concerns about original research. My approach to reviewing this article this has been 1) this content would be fine as a subsection of the ECU article because there are adequate secondary sources and this type of content is typical in college articles 2) this content meets the standard for a break-away list because it is overly long for a subsection in the ECU article and has sources (existing or potential). If this article lacks the significant coverage required for a stand-alone aritcle, shouldn't the correct action be to merge this content with the ECU article, rather than deleting it? Given the large number of this type of article in Wikipedia, I think this discussion and resulting decision has the potential to be far reaching. There are also other list articles, not on Greek life, that combine data from a wide range of sources and lack a single, independent source on the topic. If we are going to say that aggregating notable data into a list is original research, then the same would apply to all Wikipedia articles. The approach to both is the same--finding content and combining it into an article. The difference is, the content of a list like this is already verified as notable becaue of existing articles in Wikipedia. Or am I missing something? Rublamb (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of your response isn't directed to me, but to someone else's comment. I understand the institution is notable and the organizations are notable, my only issue has been the notability of this grouping and a lack of sources to demonstrate its notability. In regards to the entirety of the list not being documented, I do not have concerns with that. The list/grouping needs to be discussed as a whole, whether it list each organization isn't the issue.
Lets look at WP:NOTESAL/WP:NLIST: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 first part describes notability of the list as whole. The second, bolded, part describes the items in the list while reiterating "because the group or set is notable". WikiVirusC(talk) 18:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WikiVirusC, you are incorrect, regarding the Baird's 20th citation. I improved the reference by citing the pages (Section II, pp 54-55) that identify social, professional, recognition and honor societies at the specific school, but I realize I have an advantage because I have several copies of Baird's Manual on my shelf. Would you like me to send you a JPG of the page, where ECU's various chapters are listed?
I think there is evidence that the Deletionists are piling on with this one. One editor questioned the listing of African-American chapter names, as if that (proud) distinction didn't belong. Another was apparently unaware of broad acceptance at North American universities of usage of Greek letters in these names. I added EFN language to clarify, but their !Delete vote remains. Remember, Project groups are valuable because participants have expertise in these categories. Just salting Wikipedia with an AfD or PROD, without context or expertise can constitute bullying. Rather than attempting to improve the article, for several, the efforts are limited to subjective and narrow complaints of a lack of notability, and an unwillingness to concede that the issues were fixed. One such terse vote was even anonymous. We provided many references where there had been none, and we could provide a hundred more. Doing so becomes an annoying, pedantic exercise which detracts from readability. So much time has been wasted on this unnecessary AfD... Jax MN (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it simply list the organizations without discussing them, it is same issue I have already mentioned before. I am not bullying you or anyone else, nor do I think anyone else here is doing so. I've said my point on notability multiple times, so I won't waste your time any more. WikiVirusC(talk) 18:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of Tekken characters#Jun Kazama/Unknown. czar 00:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jun Kazama[edit]

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

Jun Kazama sources appears to be like this [21], due to fans demand. But, that's it. Failing WP:SIGCOV. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Good heavens, talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel and then some. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 08:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose With the reveal of Tekken 8, Jun suddenly became surprisingly popular for returning to the series canonically. I noticed there were several articles where she was the big highlight of the writers and how it was reflected on the Tekken fanbase, so I added them to reception. It also helps that most of the other sources discuss how popular Jun is in general to the point that ex-Capcom developer Yoshinori Ono discusses her popularity.Tintor2 (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and my position on this is strengthened by the sources that Tintor2 just added. A mass of routine trailer coverage that barely says anything about the character was added, if that's the best that could be found.... Pushsquare's commentary amounted to "looks pretty damn cool", and none of the rest were much better. Disclosure, Tintor mentioned trying to save this article on Discord, and I ended up here after reviewing. -- ferret (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I was debating on this one for a while. But with the coverage Tintor2 added, I see some decent discussion here. Jun has coverage from CBR that can also be used. Plus, Jun is only now making her grand return in the mainline Tekken series with Tekken 8, so maybe she'll get even more coverage in the coming months? Also, the article is not only covering Jun, but also her alter-ego Unknown. Could Unknown have anything as well? I'll have to look. MoonJet (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then that case will be WP:TOOSOON + CBR is not used for notability since its a weak source. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 03:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Current consensus seems to be the CBR can be used for notability, which notes that only listicles from there don't count towards notability. As for WP:TOOSOON, that's more of a case for something that doesn't have the coverage yet. What I was arguing it that maybe she'll get even more coverage. MoonJet (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no. Not only listicles. But that's just your opinion. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The actual discussion on the site linked to does mention "Content", not just listicles. I tend to agree. The article in question discussing her, like most of their output, is mostly (parrot a bunch of lore) "Wow, this could be big!" without saying much of substance, to the point it could be written by AI and nobody would notice. While it should be citeable for information, it shouldn't be indicative the character is important. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears cbr is not that useful as a source. I have used listicles before but reworded like "This character stands out for his sex appeal" but in depth analysys are harder to obtain.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintor2 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added even more coverage to the article, GlatorNator. What do you think? MoonJet (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You just added only her 2 appearances. Nothing else. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But I've cited sources discussing her too. That's where I was trying to get it here. MoonJet (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh. It was just CBR. Still not yet notable. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:GlatorNator, If you looked, I did not add CBR. I added Siliconera, Giant Freakin Robot (they seem reliable) and The Outer Haven. I did link to CBR in here, but haven't added it to the actual article. MoonJet (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, not yet enough. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 07:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would debate the idea that "Giant Freakin Robot" is reliable. I have seen total inaccuracies there before. It is not reliable. The Outer Haven is a WP:BLOG. Siliconera is an announcement, of which there are many, for most characters, but does not go indepth. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Giant Freakin Robot has been used for several other reliable publications, such as CNN, The New York Times, USA Today, Variety, LA Times, The Guardian, IGN, among others. That's always a good sign for reliability. As for The Outer Haven, they have a fact-checking policy, and have been credited by places like IGN and Destructoid. MoonJet (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Siliconera says nothing but "Revealed for Tekken 8!" again, rehashing the minor detail of not appearing officially since 2. GFR is the same beyond tacking on "confirmed fan theories she was alive!". The Outer Haven doesn't look reliable to me and the article is full of typos and grammar issues, and boils down to plot restatement, with no commentary at all about Jun. Can we seriously stop pretending that adding the routine "Announced for Tekken 8" detail from multiple sources shows sigcov? -- ferret (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And that reason has been used again below. Probably went here after this [22]. I bet closing this afd could be a bit controversial again to him because of [23] [24]. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some references have been founded [25].
    https://en.as.com/meristation/2023/03/29/news/1680046328_080539.html Tekken 8 shows off Jun Kazama and proves nothing is stronger than a mother’s love Tekken 8’s newest trailer shines a light on Jun Kazama, Jin’s mother who we haven’t seen since her debut all the way back in Tekken 2. Now she’s back and ready for a fight. and Bandai Namco themselves said it: “Love is a mother's most powerful weapon.”. This source also shows a video of her character in the game. That and the other coverage already mentioned convinces me the character is notable enough. The Reception section of the article shows there is enough to write about her to have an article. Dream Focus 21:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is just another routine trailer coverage just like Pushsquare's commentary "looks pretty damn cool" + Meristation is not reliable nor is situational. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meristation is indeed reliable, see WP:VG/S and use CTRL+F.
Not SIGCOV tho, just a press release regurgitation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oopsie, wasn't familiar with that I guess. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 09:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The initial trend towards merge was replaced by a trend towards keeping, but there doesn't appear to be a consensus either way at this point; further discussion would be helpful in determining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with List of Tekken characters: I see a lot of sources thrown around here, but very few of them appear to be actually about the character, generally constituting brief mentions, entries in lists of characters, or "character announced as playable/may be playable" with little substance to the commentary on the character. The few that are about the character seem to constitute a reiteration of game plot and little else.
    There is no evidence of cultural impact or coverage of the character's real world creation. The "Design and gameplay" section boils down to a bloated but ultimately pedestrian video game manual description of the character's physical attributes, personal history, and combat abilities. The "Reception" section is a lot of fluff that amounts to "a lot of people sure do enjoy playing as this character in the video game". The "Unknown" section is simply pure GAMECRUFT.
    All in all, I see no justification for this as a standalone Wikipedia article, and no reason why it can't be cut down and merged. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 15:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the character list.Tintor2 (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Tekken character list. Her design section is overlong and I second that the "Unknown" section is all cruft. Game appearances section is adequate and can easily be condensed into the character list. The only reception content of any relevance may be the Common Sense mention, while the rest are pedestrian rankings and people wishing she was playable (I loved the irony of all the fan requests for her inclusion in TTT2 and then her only being the 21st-most used character in the game), which might have met SIGCOV requirements long ago but not now as VG notability evolves. A fairly easy call. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 23:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, finding coverage for Unknown is extremely difficult, since the searches think you're referring to the actual word "unknown." Even if you try adding "Tekken" or "Tekken Tag Tournament" in your search. I've been looking pretty hard. MoonJet (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the character list, per WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I looked at sources, and the best we have are few paragraphs here and here (feel free to ping me and point out better sources). Despite mentioning the character in their titles, they are both short and I don't think they even meet WP:SIGCOV here; they contain just a few factoids and zero analysis of the character's importance outside the game. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coal, West Virginia[edit]

Coal, West Virginia (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 difficult "place" to search for, since "Coal" +"Kanawha County" brings up tons of stuff about coal mining in the county; but I'm not seeing reliable sources for a place of this name. The GNIS ID given in the infobox is invalid, and GNIS has no entry for a populated place named Coal or Cofoco in Kanawha County. Deor (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google maps satellite view is showing a few buildings, driveway and a road junction, but that's not enough for a Wikipedia article imv. (t · c) buidhe 00:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't find anything for a community named "Coal", although searching is impossible for obvious reasons. (Although I'm finding one reference to a "Coal Station" that is roughly in the right area, but probably something different), given that it seems to be further to the west). Cofoco was a small miner housing camp in the 1920s, named for a coal mining company, but the association of the two names in unsourced in the article and is marked as uncertain here. The user who created this article has had hundreds of similar articles deleted as problematic, and after discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brows Defeat, Kentucky and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fish Pond, Kentucky, I don't think we can assume a hidden gem under this somewhere. Hog Farm Talk 01:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and West Virginia. • Gene93k (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While it is nearly impossible to search for "Coal," the alternate name "Cofoco" (Coal Fork Coal Company) yields snippets in Google Books, mostly in the 1920s through 1940s with the latest being 1984. Best guess is that Cofoco was a company town associated with a mine. It did exist, but there is very little to support WP:NPLACE, never mind GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found it labeled as "Coal" on USGS topographical survey maps from 1931 and 1976, which are both citeable sources. It may be unincorporated and minor, but it is (or was) a populated place by this name, and readers may want to find where it is—and confirmation that it existed. That alone is enough to support a stub, which could possibly be supplemented by additional information in future. P Aculeius (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The topo maps are the sources of the WP:GNIS which is already cited, and this is not sufficient for notability (WP:NGEO specifically excludes maps from establishing notability). It may have been a neighborhood near a mine, but without more substantive sources, existence is not notability per WP:GEOLAND2. Reywas92Talk 14:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe this is the correct interpretation of GEOLAND. What constitutes "legal recognition" is a nebulous matter; arguably being included on government-issued maps could satisfy this requirement. The two sources excluded may have relied on the USGS topographical survey maps, but that does not mean that the maps themselves are excluded, since unlike online databases, they can be used to verify location and population, and have a degree of reliability over a span of time that online databases may not. If all sources generated by the U.S. Geographical survey were excluded, the guideline would say that, instead of merely excluding databases extracted from various sources. Additionally, places without "legal recognition" may be considered notable; examples of places that might not be describe "subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods". Towns, even coal towns, separate rather than part of other entities, are not mentioned. It may be small, it may be unincorporated, but it is still a distinct place, rather than a nickname for an uninhabited area or neighborhood of an existing town.
This part of the guideline also says, "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." Now, if you consider it an "informal" place, it can still be included in an article about the next notable place in which it occurs. I cannot see this being done in the case of the article about Kanawha County, unless in a list of unincorporated communities—and in this case it should still include the location and citable sources. If it cannot be conveniently incorporated as part of a notable topic—Kanawha County, the magisterial district that contains this part of the county, or Cabin Creek—then it should remain as a stand-alone article. Otherwise data appropriate to an encyclopedia—the name and location of a populated place for which readers might be expected to search—would be lost, and that does not seem to be a reasonable position. If, however, the name and location of Coal—with a citable source—can be incorporated into an article about a notable place, and the current title made into a redirect to that article or section, then it might be acceptable to delete the contents of the article. P Aculeius (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've participated in hundreds of nominations and other discussions on places. It is decidedly not "legal recognition" for a place to merely appear on a map, not to the point that it is exempt from literally any other coverage beyond that mere appearance. This place is not a "town", which in West Virginia is legally defined as a type of legally recognized municipality (List of municipalities in West Virginia). This place is a neighborhood or informal area. Named and on a map yes, but with zero official or legal status. Kanawha_County,_West_Virginia#Unincorporated_communities does not currently have Coal on it, though many others on this list were mass-created by the same person and similarly lack notability. There is not currently a List of unincorporated communities in West Virginia that other states have, but that would be the place for this. Reywas92Talk 15:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be confusing "recognition" with "incorporation": the guideline does not say who has to "recognize" it or what constitutes "recognition", but it seems that acknowledgment by an official government survey as a distinct place might qualify irrespective of incorporation—otherwise you could simply wipe the slate of all unincorporated communities for which limited information exists. I do not read "neighborhood" to mean "freestanding community", but rather a vaguely defined portion of another community. "Informal region of a state" certainly does not mean "village" or "town", whether incorporated or not. None of the language describing the things that are not inherently notable—although reliable sources may demonstrate that they are—describes the village of Coal, and thus the passage does not, as contended, exclude it from being notable.
But the best argument remains: it is a populated place that is not part of another community. Readers will want to know what and where it is. Deleting it without placing the information anywhere else in the encyclopedia does a disservice to our readers—and what is gained? The encyclopedia will have saved 3.5 kB!
I suggest that if information is useful to readers—such as finding out where a place they have heard of or read about might have been—then a stub article providing that information ought not to be deleted unless it is first saved somewhere else, in some other article that can be readily located by readers searching for it. It is not enough to say, "this could go in such-and-such article—if it existed—but it doesn't, so too bad!" That's actually about the worst rationale there could possibly be for deletion. So if you want to delete it that badly, you should first make sure that the useful and reliable information has been saved in an appropriate place, even if it means making it yourself. Until and unless that's done, there's no justification for deleting the article as it stands. P Aculeius (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is very little value to readers if all that can be said about a place is it's coordinate location. USGS has a very low bar for listing populated places (a distinct place name where permanent residential houses are located). Even a mobile home park can qualify, and there have been AfD debates for those. The place has a name. The newspaper link provided above by Hog Farm indicates it was a site for worker housing built in the 1920s. Beyond that, there is a GNG fail with insufficient evidence Coal/Cofoco was a community. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, exactly what do you believe constitutes a "community", besides the residences of a number of people in a location separate and distinguished from other places? The 1931 map shows approximately sixteen houses or house-sized structures along Cabin Creek at or just above the mouth of the Coal Fork, not including those that look like they might have been part of the coal mining operation; in 1976 there were about the same number of houses or similar buildings in the same location, although some of them are probably different from the 1931 structures. At a minimum that would presumably represent forty or fifty people living there over half a century or so; a number must have been born there and died there.
If all that the article says is where it was, that it had an alternative name, that it was built for the workers at the neighboring coal mine, along with which it was named after the branch of the creek where the village and mine were located, that it was built in the 1920's, still inhabited in 1976, and that only a few houses remain there in 2023, that's still useful information for anyone who doesn't know that "Coal" or "Cofoco" was the name of a coal company town on Cabin Creek in Kanawha County from the 1920's to the 1970's, and that some people still live in the vicinity.
And is your argument that it doesn't deserve even a stub article explaining any of this to people searching for information about it, or is it that none of this should be mentioned in any article on any topic in Wikipedia? Because it's already been pointed out that the geographic notability topic supports including information as part of other articles if the place isn't sufficiently notable to merit one of its own. The fundamental problem posed by this nomination goes away if Coal is adequately described as part of another article. P Aculeius (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and do not mention in any article unless SIGCOV sourcing can be found. Currently we only have GNIS and the "National Map" which only verifies that it is/was a place with a name, not that it was an "unincorporated community" or even a populated place. We need actual sourcing, not OR and speculation, to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 13:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient evidence to indicate this named place on the map was a settlement. The GNIS record disppeared because it was coded as a "locale", a named place with permanent human-made structures, not a "populated place". Locale entries like Budaghers, New Mexico are no longer in the database. Beyond it's place on maps, there is very little to satisfy WP:NRVE and overcome a lack of significant coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 05:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lowyat.net[edit]

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

Deleted twice. gnews almost exclusively comes up with its own website. Also nominating the website founder who I believe fails WP:BIO

LibStar (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:WEBCRIT, notability is not established. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Optima Bus Corporation. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chance RT-52[edit]

Chance RT-52 (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 - only notable for being used on Wiki Wiki Shuttle, which itself has questionable notability. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Preferably keep but second best is merge as per gidonb's rationale. Searched for material to add but found little of note. Suspect there's coverage offline perhaps for example, in City Transit Buses of the 20th Century - Photo Gallery by William A. Luke, Linda L. Metler (2005), The Illustrated Encyclopedia of American Trucks and Commercial Vehicles by Albert Mroz (1996), A Historical Survey of Transit Buses in the United States by Society of Automotive Engineers (1980) or in National Bus Trader periodical which says it has been serving the bus industry since 1977. Rupples (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only fair to strike through one of the sources I suggested. Located it on JSTOR and while the company is mentioned the particular model under discussion here is not. Rupples (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kido Blanko[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kido Blanko (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 subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He is not a notable act in the Nigerian music industry. None of the sources cited in the article are not independent of him; they are all interviews. None of the subject's music has been crticially reviewed or charted on any country's official music chart. The subject has released an extended play but it isn't notable. The article is written in a promotional tone and was previously deleted via an AFD discussion.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 01:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 01:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and salt, G11 if possible.. This absolutely should not have been moved from the Draft namespace. Highly promotional content about a subject who does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. There is also likely some undisclosed paid editing involved here. --Kinu t/c 03:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article should not have been moved out of draft. A couple of the sources appear to be good but on further investigation they don't appear to be independent. I was unable to find sources to rescue this article but if some appear please ping me. I recognize that there could be sources that exist that I don't know about or have access to. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 05:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – no sources that are independent and secondary, and it looks like the sources have been randomly added to the text because many of them don't verify the content. No sign of his meeting WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC. --bonadea contributions talk 12:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FWIW I've removed the advertising and did a little CE'ing, though I dont expect this to survive AFD. Googleguy007 (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . This article seems to be a presentable outline and not a dictionary definition. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of consulting[edit]

Outline of consulting (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)

Poor attempt at what is a DICDEF and a long list of unrelated consulting careers/things. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to discuss a statement. It is more a discussion of what forms a scope for Wikipedia's in-out mechanisms, rather than whether it is an outline of consulting or not
(I don't see how else one would construct an outline of consulting, namely). I thought it'd be a good idea to have an outline of a service industry that has a growing employment number as a result of the industrialization of the growing economy. Whether that is of encyclopedic or dictionary value, well it's maybe in the eyes of the beholder .. Danielsltt (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But I want to be clear in that I'm not saying that you're wrong. Rather I'm recognizing the arbitrariness of the discussion based on Wikipedia's rather loose, swaying guidelines .. Danielsltt (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:AFG Danielsltt (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Economics and Business. 03:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LemonberryPie (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I don't understand the nomination at all (nor, frankly, the page creator's response) so I wonder whether it was a different article that was intended for AFD. This list is nothing like a WP:DICDEF (dictionary definition) nor was it intended to be. It is a WP:OUTLINE, a type of navigational list. In a very rough and ready sort of way it is a list of "consulting careers/things" but is that any sort of problem, let alone a reason for deletion? Surely they are not "unrelated": if any items are unrelated they should be removed. I will not !vote at present because I may be missing any important aspect and I hope all this can be clarified. Thincat (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, I wasn't sure how to explain it. It starts out with prose stating it's attempting to explain consulting, then goes into a list. Oaktree b (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A WP:OUTLINE is supposed to have a lead followed by a hierarchical list: "The purpose of the lead section in outlines is to present just enough description to uniquely identify and recognize the subject". What is the reason for deletion? Thincat (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't think it met LIST. It appears as a badly titled "article" trying to explain the concept, doesn't that, then has a long list of things. I wasn't sure what to make of it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - whatever we may think of Wikipedia's approach to outlines, this one conforms to that, providing an overview of the encyclopedia's detailed coverage of the topic. No doubt it is useful to readers interested in such things. It would be nice if it were better-cited, but outlines are not even required to have refs, as it happens. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what I was trying to do. It is a useful tool for overviews to rather large subjects in terms of scope. Thanks for the input Danielsltt (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I commented above). I get the feeling the nominator is rather withdrawing his nomination. This is a navigational list including only other Wikipedia articles, hence only including notable topics, so meeting WP:NLIST and, since there are no red links, no citations are required. See WP:CSC. The overall topic is notable: here is a book suitable for people like me.[26] Thincat (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of Nazi Germany[edit]

Fall of Nazi Germany (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 is amply covered in many WW2 articles, this appears to be a poor synthesis of things discussed in a few recent books. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Ariel Then[edit]

Carlos Ariel Then (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)

Vanity spam, non-notable business person. Gseach goes straight to social media, no mentions in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify and protect the main space page title.‎ . This wasn't specifically advocated but I think it will satisfy those editors who state the problem is TOOSOON. I believe most of the promotional content has been removed. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Career Tech High School[edit]

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

Non-notable school, not even built yet. Article is a staff directly. There is nothing notable architecturally about the structure as well. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT: I tagged this with G11 yesterday which was deleted by Deepfriedokra. This is nothing but the same copy intended to promote the school. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is NOT to promote the school, it is notable because it is the first technical school in the Washington County School District (Utah), More info about the school will be added when it becomes available. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please understand that the lack of information IS the reason it isn't notable, a term with a specific meaning on Wikipedia. Also, please remove all your spurrious use of bolding in this discussion. The only thing that should be bolded is your !vote. As several have noted, this article is WP:TOOSOON. You can add a small amount of content to the sxhool district's article now, provided you back it up with reliable independent secondary sources, but lists of names of staff or students will never be appropriate either in the SD article or an eventual separate article on this school. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Utah. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This reads like a promotional article, with puffery about "learning pathways". It fails WP:NSCHOOL besides. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well this is a notable school because it is the First Technical School in Washington County School District (Utah). If you don't like the wording then please help make the wording better. (This is NOT a promotional article) PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That by itself doesn't establish notability, and the use of primary sources doesn't inspire confidence either. If you're certain if the notability of this establishment, then wait until secondary sources confirm it. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - (again) G11 and salt. WP:TOOSOON. When notability can be established, let the creator go through AfC. BTW, I removed the staff directory. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a notable school, as it is the first technical school in Washington County School District (Utah). PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability hasn't been established by secondary sources, and the article itself reads like a sales pitch. May also be WP:TOOSOON TheInsatiableOne (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be conflating your rather subjective real world view of what notable means with Wikipedia's more objective policy on notability. Please read the link and try to understand that your stated reason for notability isn't a reason at all. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Part of me is sympathetic to the article—once the school opens, it will almost certainly be notable, and it's opening in this coming school year. In the grand scheme of things, all due respect to WP:TOOSOON, I probably wouldn't participate in a deletion debate when the only argument is "nuh uh! this article has to be created next month" (well, okay, in five months). But that isn't the only argument in favor of deletion. I took a shot at adding some secondary sources to the article ... and I could only find one—from a considerably small local-news source (no disrespect to small local-news sources!). And one February 2023 article on WSCD's "Career & Technical Education Month" didn't even mention the school! If there were more coverage on the school's construction or the decision to create the school or anything, I'd lean towards keep. But, given the dearth of secondary sources, I think we just have to delete and wait.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What if we added in The Article that More information would immediately be added when it becomes available????.
    Or if there is a way to change it to a draft, I would be willing to to that, then when more info comes I could add it then resubmit it. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not even the lack of information that's the real problem. There are many stubs which don't have much content, yet are kept. The issue here is the article lacks neutrality, reading like a sales pitch for the most part, and fails to establish notability. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're interested in saving the article content for use later, you could always keep it in your user space. I.e., make a page like User:PaulGamerBoy360/Career Tech High School and then copy and paste the article as it currently stands to it.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks i did that. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change To Draft- [[Wikipedia:Too soon]] PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Too soon PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have no objection to draftifying this article. I'd strongly urge the creator to read and understand the five pillars, My first article and WP:42. I'd also suggest editing other articles and asking questions at The Teahouse, a Q&A forum especially for new editors. Also, please understand that this draft is likely a year or more out from being an article, as references that only speak to a school's opening are generally not considered enough to show notability. The fact that it's the first tech school in the county will never be a factor in determining its notability. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. It is obviously WP:TOOSOON, but according to this article], "2021 will also likely see the building of a new career technical high school that will work in tandem with Dixie State University and Dixie Technical College to help students receive a high school diploma and a certificate for their industry once they graduate." A second article says, "There are also plans to open another school in the southern block of the city. CT High School will be located on River Road and just off state Route 7, the Southern Parkway. The school will focus on career technical training. The opening for this high school has been delayed by two years, from 2021 to 2023, due to construction supply shortages, according to Dunham." Neither source is substantive coverage, but if the WCSD has the funds allocated and supply chain issues are the hold-up, we should be seeing more coverage in the near future. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Iyal Gafai[edit]

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

Non-notable cleric. No sources found, links in the article are a Google search and some non-RS looking websites. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Sinn[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman, only listings are social media and PR links, appears PROMO Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a businessman who is capable of acquiring a $100+m house should be considered notable OliverBrown1 (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how WP works.   ArcAngel   (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Puerto Rico, Illinois, and Texas. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hasn't said or done anything remotely notable. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a promotional piece with nothing in reliable secondary sources to suggest notability per WP:BASIC. Looking at the sources, (a) he donated money to Texas A&M and the school wrote some PR material about it, (b) he bought an expensive house, and (c) he was involved in some litigation. This is hardly the type of content upon which to base a WP:BLP. --Kinu t/c 15:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_April_20

Leave a Reply