Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< October 23 October 25 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Themodmin[edit]

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

Article about a software company, not properly sourced as passing WP:CORP criteria. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as its own self-published Facebook posts, and shows no evidence of GNG-building coverage about it in reliable sources independent of itself. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - almost entirely sourced to itself, and that to Facebook. Created by an SPA, likely with a COI. It's an advert. KJP1 (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The only thing I could find that was anything approaching a third-party source was this from the Design Institute of San Diego, which is a link to Themodmin's YouTube tutorials, and and that doesn't meet the "significant coverage" requirement. - Aoidh (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails GNG. Could not find anything on Newspapers Extended. BBQboffin (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian Attacks during Russo-Georgian War[edit]

Georgian Attacks during Russo-Georgian War (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)

CFORK of Russo-Georgian War. Not the first article created by this new editor that is of low-quality and with problematic nationalistic overtones; additional scrutiny may be needed. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE. I can't even understand half of the things in the article. This article is nonsense, terrible grammar, and like what the nom said, it's just a CFORK of the Russo-Georgian War. Also, the entire article is critical of Georgia.
The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 12:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am the Owner of the Article. Since I am new to this Wikipedia Page, I am Trying to Make it More better. I am really, AND. This article is Part Of Russo-Georgian War So count it as "CFORK" if u want to. Imakewikipedianpages (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Imakewikipedianpages,
No one, not the article creator nor the chief contributor, "owns" a Wikipedia article. You can see this in this AFD where the community comes to gether to evaluate whether it should be Kept, Deleted, Redirected, Merged or Draftify. Decisions here are made by consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for telling me that I guess Imakewikipedianpages (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think we can count the article creator's comment as a "Keep" so Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - for the time being. This is the work of a new editor trying to do it right. We were all new once. And the situation itself is in constant evolving. We should let this new editor get his stuff together and finish it. It can be tidied up afterwards. — Maile (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How is the situation "constantly evolving"? We're talking about things that happened more than 15 years ago. FOARP (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - This is a plain and simple POVFORK of Russo-Georgian War. You cannot just divide a war into the "attacks" of one side absent any support in reliable, secondary sources for that division, which there simply isn't one here. A war between two sides consists of both sides shooting at each other. FOARP (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as content fork. Srnec (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Yinglan[edit]

Tan Yinglan (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. Blatant self-promo, no sign of independent sigcov. Jdcooper (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to include more sources and independent coverage, open to suggestions on other sources to include. Paujoqs97 (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: resume style promo BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. The refs above, like the refs in the article fail WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. The refs listed above are as good as it gets and none of them have SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  23:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Right now, I see no reliable sources that he is actually a billionaire, and as we know from DJT, it's easy to inflate the value of one's assets. If he is actually a billionaire, there would be better sources. Tagging DGG for input. Bearian (talk) 01:45, 1 November 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finger Your Neck[edit]

Finger Your Neck (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)

Topic does not meet notability criteria per WP:NRADIO. The existing sources that can be validated provide only routine coverage (e.g., "This show will be playing Sunday at 8pm!"). One source provides two sentences about the show's creators. A quick Google search did not provide further insights. Significa liberdade (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Significa liberdade (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some extra details and references. The fact it was a play about the mafia adapted to Australian radio is very novel for me - but if concensus of the community is that it isn't quite enough then by all means delete. Britfilm (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World of Music (Zeebra album)[edit]

World of Music (Zeebra album) (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Failss the general and album-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Passes criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM per evidence provided above by Dekimasu.4meter4 (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was there is clearly no consensus to delete this‎. If there's any desire to shuffle the content around, perhaps to the company article or a standalone list, that can continue to be discussed, but that discussion need not take place here. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suzy Q[edit]

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

As I said in my PROD, the only coverage I found which appears to be reliable is the Today.com article which is already here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I want the article kept. It's probably not gonna be, which is why I didn't bother making a serious argument. It doesn't meet the WP:GNG, which most people won't dig deeper. (I get it, people are busy, and statistically that usually works.) [Update: per drilling down shown below, can be made to meet the GNG if WP:HEY is done, so probably will be kept 17:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)]
If I was going to make a serious argument, it would be along these lines:
1) It's an OK article. It's not offensive, promotional or like that. It costs us no effort to make it; somebody already has. There's no reason to give a person searching for info on this entity a 404 rather than this article.
2) It's a somewhat well-known product as its been on grocery shelves across America. A non-zero number of people are going to want to learn about it (Unfortunately the page count will tell nothing, because most people are looking for Suzie Q, or Susie Q). Looks like the article should be renamed to Suzy Q (snack cake), the string "Suzy Q" should be a redirect to Suzie Q which is a disambig page, and this article listed on that page. That is, technically, against the WP:AT rules, so can't happen. Rules!)
3) The First Principle is "Wikipedia is an an encyclopedia" and that page states that the Wikipedia "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias". "Encyclopedia of American Snacks" would be a reasonable, if specialized and obscure, thing to exist. The rule doesn't say "includes the contents of existing specialized encyclopedias", it says we should have the things ("features") that specialized encyclopedias would have, namely a bunch of entries (often short) about various small details of specialized areas. And as a matter of fact, there is a specialized encyclopedia that contains an entry for Suzy Q: "The NutriBase Complete Book of Food Counts". True, the title says it is a "book" rather than an encyclopedia, but are we going to fuss about details of title wordings? The book "Eat This, Not That! The Supermarket Survival Guide" isn't an encyclopedia, but it does have an entry where it provides useful details for the cakes. They weigh 57 grams, 220 calories, and son on. We also learn that (as of the book's publishing year) "One Suzy Q has 50 more calories than a Wendy's Jr. Original Chocolate Frosty".
There are a number of other similar-type books that mention the product, mostly tiny entries in diet book. But we do learn from the "Flash Gordon" comic book that in 1965 that we could "[f]ind 3 fullcolor [baseball] cards printed on specially marked boxes of Twinkies Cakes. Cup Cakes, Suzy Q's and other Hostess snacks." All these small datums add up to a reasonable article.
There's also something about Suzy Q's in, believe it or not, the scholarly book "Animals and Agency: An Interdisciplinary Exploration", the chapter "At the Top of the Hierarchical Ladder", page 291, "[The] Owl finally accepts a Hostess Suzy Q snack cake. Even this small alteration from her own diet, however, prevents her metamorphosis for several hours, entrapping her in a human-animal prison and effectively denying Owl her identity." Her identity! Bigdome college talk there. And you thought it was just a snack cake. Anyway, there's a entry for your "In science, literature, and the arts" section right there.
There's plenty enough there to make a perfectly good, if short, article. And, in theory, there's a link right above to look in Google Books. Not really complaining, no blame, I forget to do all the WP:BEFORE steps usually. We all do. But at least in theory we should try to be more diligent. Note to self also.
4) You're cutting a hole in a matched set. Category:Hostess Brands brands has ten entries. Granted this article is much smaller than those others (at this time), but still. And there's even a template which includes our cream-filled delights along with its brethren. I can't post it here for technical reasons, but here is the link: {{Snack cakes}}
So now we are putting a redlink in this template. When that's the case, to me it's a data point to consider: do we want to do this? (I call this the "broken windows" approach to deletion; don't just throw rocks at random windows, either leave them intact or bring the whole structure down). There's no rule about this, but I we're not supposed to be too rule-bound.
But, in addition to all this, apparently the product is going to be made again, and there's plenty of coverage of that. I get that OP didn't catch that, I have made the same mistake often enough, so again no blame, and I only saw it 'cause I dug deep for this post. But here is a whole short article from the Today show, and there are some notices in the business press. There's your article right there.
Sorry to rant on, but you asked. No serious criticism intended. I know we get a firehose of crappy articles every day. I happen to latch on to this article, in real life we can't spend that much time on all these entities, deliciously cream-filled as they may be. But now I see that somebody could WP:HEY it with all these refs.
TL;DR: Keep. Snack cake. Herostratus (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [minor edits 16:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC))][reply]
  • Merge to Hostess Brands §Products, which will improve the suggested merge target article, as per WP:ATD-M. North America1000 06:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how appropriate merging to that specific section would be given it's currently just a bulleted list, but I would support merging to elsewhere in the article; perhaps the History section would be more appropriate. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Prefer Hostess (snack cakes)#Products as merge target. I'm not concerned about the fact that the section at either proposed merge target is a bulleted list; each bullet point could reasonably be expanded. Suriname0 (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this notion directly above from Suriname0, that the bulleted list can easily be expanded, which would also improve the article. North America1000 09:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I removed a template from this discussion which was interfering with the layout of all of the other AFD discussions on the daily log page. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you. It was weirding the layout here too. Herostratus (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Mentioned here [3], just barely at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When I saw this AFD, I thought "of course, they're notable". However, after searching, I cannot find any significant coverage. THe only coverage I could find amounts to 'these things exist and they're coming back'. Not enough. -- Mike 🗩 17:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep barely meets GNG Andre🚐 00:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, arguments to Keep, Delete and Merge but No Consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mnmh. Why are we relisting this again? It's not a vote, but if it was a vote, it'd be 3-2 to keep (including nominator) and one merge which seems unlikely. For the arguments, even if you want to believe that mine are worthless and not worth refuting or paying attention to (whatever, it's you all's life) and all that is at issue is a GO/NOGO based on the WP:GNG, you've got a 3-2 edge on people saying that it does meet the GNG (or could) and, c'mon, it does, at least bu a little. Sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus, I appreciate your thoughtful contributions to the conversation here. But this isn't a vote count and I don't see a consensus here. Closers, above all else, do not want to be accused of "supervoting", inserting our own opinion into the close or taking sides. But since you object to my response, I'll not take further action here and will let another closer decide how and when to end this discussion. They might see things differently than I did. Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User: Liz, I was wrong, you were right, and thanks for the relist, better safe than sorry. I just get frustrated that these AfD's (I seldom come here) seem to be populated by editors who seem to treat WP:GNG as an ironclad core foundational rule. We lose a lot of OK articles that way I suppose, and basically give a good "get lost" to the people who researched and wrote them, to boot. Hey, I vote Delete more often than Keep, but for actually not-OK articles. And for all I know, four more editors are going to come here and chime in with "four legs good, two legs bad" "Doesn't meet GNG, delete" or "Delete per nom" and the closer will be like "OK, 6-3 to delete, deleted", with with an explanation consisting solely of "The result was DELETE". I've been assured that there's no serious shortage of admins, and no need to add a class of civilian AfD closer, so I've got to figure that this is considered best practice.
AfD does't work very well anymore. Maybe it did before our Eternal September, I can't remember. We get too many false positives. I suppose for deletion also (I don't come here much): "Worthless article, but unfortunately meets WP:GNG so must keep". Do something else, people. A group of 20 picked studious admins who decide. Yeah, I know, "the community". Fine, if we could school people on, I don't know, what we're supposed to be doing here. Fetching info out of the world, out of darkness and obscurity and decay, and putting in a nice package interlinked with other nice packages, an overview (good enough for most people, and often pointers to good deeper material for those for whom it isn't), all verified with nice refs, that makes the internet not suck so much. Rather than "Congratulations! You've deleted your first article!"
I'm not getting why giving readers a 404 instead of this article which already exists is helpful for that. I've never gotten a good explanation for that, and I've asked many times. I know, I know, I'm typing into the void. Whatever. Makes me feel better anyway. No need to reply if you even do read this, I'm just venting.</rant> Sincerely Yours, Frustrated. Herostratus (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very very weak keep per Oaktree. Just barely enough for me before I vote for merge. I'd be inclined to vote for a stronger (relative term) keep per the very long paragraphs Herostratus said but if I were to talk about WP:N I definitely would doubt this would meet it. S5A-0043Talk 12:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oaktree. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hostess Brands §Products as an AtD.  // Timothy :: talk  21:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Yes, beloved childhood memories. Yes, some sources exist, but coverage is shallow rather than significant. A merge is almost always preferable when there is a vigorous debate to keep or delete, there is a useful target to merge into, and the discussion implicates that at least a minority of active users find the information useful to keep. Bearian (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mnmh, merges are appropriate sometimes, but as a positive improvement, not as a compromise, cos that can just make it worse. The material is either useful or its not. Merging rather than deciding would, in this case, just make a mess. Here is the the current contents of Hostess Brands §Products:
A list of eight linked names. You're suggesting it be replaced with a list of seven linked names and a two-paragraph (or so) illustrated exposition on one of the products. This seems like converting a neat structure into a not-as-neat structure. Most of those articles are longer than this one, true; some a lot longer and some a little longer, those ones mainly because they go into more detail (could do that here too), or have a large in-popular-culture section, or have some material ref'd to offline books. Zingers is shorter.
I think that merging in just this article might look to the reader like we're valorizing Suzy Qs in particular: it'd be the only product with more than a link after all. Having not-so-neat structures increases the chances of having unintended bad consequences like that, whether building a computer program, a house, or an encyclopedia.
And, sooner or later an editor will probably come along and be like "This is not neat" and just delete the material and possibly the mention of the product in the list at all, because it'd be the only blacklinked one. (Moving it into its own article, which that editor might see as the best solution, would not be allowed.) This's another possible unintended bad consequence of having a not-so-neat structure. Herostratus (talk) 05:14, 1 November 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. There is a majority of rationales for deletion here, and they generally appear to be closer to policy. Black Kite (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Hossain Raju (professor)[edit]

Zakir Hossain Raju (professor) (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 person in the article does not have significant media coverage to fill WP:GNG. Not meeting the requirements in WP:NACADEMIC as a professor, nor in WP:ENT as a film/documentary maker. Also, the subject appears to have a WP:COI with the article author. —MdsShakil (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review of the Wikipedia article on Zakir Hossain Raju. I appreciate your diligence in ensuring that articles meet the relevant Wikipedia guidelines.
I would like to address your concerns:
Notability (WP:GNG): Zakir Hossain Raju has made significant contributions to the fields of media and journalism studies, particularly in Bangladesh. While it's true that he may not have widespread international media coverage, he is recognized in academic circles, and his research papers are highly regarded in his field. Universities in bangladesh included this research paper as course-guided material (Books, Article, Research Paper).
Academic Notability (WP:NACADEMIC): While it is correct that Professor Raju may not be widely known outside of his field, within the academic community in Bangladesh, he is well-regarded for his contributions to media studies. The Prestigious Film Festival like Venice Film Festival, International Film Festival Rotterdam invited him as a jury chair in the asain film category. His books on cinema are widely available in Europe.
Entertainment Notability (WP:ENT): As a documentary maker and filmmaker, Zakir Hossain Raju may not be a household name, but his work has had an impact on the documentary and filmmaking landscape in Bangladesh. He has contributed to the cultural and artistic representation of his country through his films. His films were selected for festivals like the Busan Film Festival and others in the 1990s. So that the news and information about this matter are not on the internet.
Conflict of Interest (WP:COI): As the article author, I can confirm that I am not personally related to Zakir Hossain Raju and have no conflict of interest in creating or editing the article. My sole intention is to provide accurate and reliable information about a notable individual. And there is misinformation or delusions on the internet about the name; there is a filmmaker Jakir Hossain Raju with a similar name whose job is filmmaking. I myself got puzzled by searching the books of him (Zakir Hossain Raju). This is another reason why I chose this person to create an article about him. Since 2015, I have liked to contribute in Wikipedia in the area of cinema, I know my contribution to Wikipedia is nothing but a drop of water in this area.
Furthermore, it's worth noting that Wikipedia's notability guidelines allow for the inclusion of articles about individuals who are notable within specific geographic or academic contexts, even if they do not have international fame. Zakir Hossain Raju's impact in Bangladesh and his contributions to academic research make him a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article.
In summary, I believe that the article on Zakir Hossain Raju meets the relevant Wikipedia guidelines, and I would be happy to work with you to address any specific concerns or make improvements to the article as needed. Let's make Wikipedia more informative together!
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Best regards,
Parbon CuriousCrafter 16:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be kept only when that person meets the notability criteria. You have to prove which points he passed and also provide reliable sources. —MdsShakil (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You uploaded his picture as your own work on Commons, so how can we assure that you have no WP:COI? —MdsShakil (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That has all the hallmarks of a ChatGPT authored screed. Polyamorph (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roman Spinner, I am baffled that someone with over 50,000 edits and almost two decades of experience could argue that a WP entry (regardless of which language it is in), an IMDb entry, and wikilinks constitute arguments in favor of notability. WP and IMDb are user-contributed sources, none of this means anything here. And a faculty profile is not an independent source and soesn't mean anything for notability either... --Randykitty (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of a Wikipedia page in another language should never be considered as an argument to keep it in a different language. However, if we were to use that logic, note that the page in Bengali Wikipedia has now been deleted. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. agreed with @Roman Spinner 103.113.149.244 (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NPROF. I am not seeing any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    news from The Daily Star, Bangladesh Post, Dhaka Tribune, etc. and ISBN/DOI ID, festival website mentions are not independent, reliable sources? What are the reliable sources, I wonder? There are a bunch of bengali news, journals, and book publications of/about the subject on the internet; I didn't cite here for the English readability. CuriousCrafter 14:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I opened the refs and it passes BASIC. Desertarun (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will try. Ref 1 & 2 = profile, Ref 3 = passing mentions, Ref 4 = review of his one book, Ref 5 = unreliable, Ref 6 = passing mentions, Ref 7 to 13 = written by subject Zakir Hossain Raju himself, Ref 14 & 15 = passing mentions, Ref 16 & 17 = profile, Ref 18, 20, 21 = usual news e.g. Raju hands award to Japanese filmmaker, Ref 19 = ?, Ref 22 = passing mentions. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject has an h-index of 5 and cannot find anything about him which would lend me to believe he meets any of 8 criteria of WP:NACADEMIC. He would also not meet WP:NFILMMAKER as these do not even appear to be notable films. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has a lot of books to his name, potentially satisfies WP:NAUTHOR. neutral h-index is not a good indicator of anything in the humanities (or indeed any subject, as it is easily manipulated through self citations or publishing in junk journals). Potentially statisfies 5. and 6. of WP:NACADEMIC (head of department, dean, founding director...of various institutes). Polyamorph (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
edit:changed to 'neutral', not as many books as I first thought, several chapters and research articles. Does have some coverage in independent reliable sources, not sure if it's enough. Polyamorph (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as head of a department, full professor, and journal founder. I'm hesitant to support based on judging a film festival, which is not a factor and, from my insider knowledge of other film festivals, is often done from friendships and horse-trading, rather than ability to judge anything. Coverage per SIGCOV is somewhat weak, but he still passes the Prof test. Bearian (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being full professor or head of a department is not enough to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG is not met either. --Randykitty (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see a pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. He's one of only a handful of academics writing about Bangladeshi cinema. Unfortunately that hasn't resulted in his work (one book based on his PhD thesis and various chapters and journal articles) being highly cited. And I agree with আফতাবুজ্জামান's source assessment. So doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 09:54, 2 November 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 Naples, Florida#Area attractions. Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tin City[edit]

Tin City (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 information on this topic to be a full article. Maybe some information about this plaza could be included in the naples, florida article Matthew is here zero (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Waltz[edit]

Winged Waltz (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 fails WP:NALBUM. I don't know that Metal Storm is a reliable source, let alone notable itself. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Metal Storm is listed on WP:RSMUSIC with a discussion from 2011, and this review is marked as staff. However, the article doesn't have much going for it beyond that and I couldn't find anything additional, so I think redirecting to October Tide would be more appropriate. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep page with two reliable sources. If it cannot be kept, it should be merged into October Tide. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see this and this, which covers the significance of the subject and also a review, all from reliable sources, of which I believe it's enough to keep the article afloat. And yes, "Metal Storm" is a reliable source until proven otherwise, nominator should see WP:RSMUSIC. dxneo (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: 2 reliable sources is enough to establish notability. Nagol0929 (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reliable and good sources. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TRAZ[edit]

TRAZ (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 the article due to lack of sources available, which goes against the notability guidelines. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 20:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Plenty of reviews according to MobyGames. [4] + found three more sources via Newspapers.com [5], [6], [7] Timur9008 (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As per SIGCOV, I see it as cutting it very close with the sources. Also, the sources provided appear to be ADVERTS )note them all listing prices, and not reviewing, but exclusively viewing the subject in a positive light). Unfortunately, the organization my IP is attached to has blocked Mobygames, but I am not a deletionist and do, in fact, want the article to stay up. Best regards, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 19:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:NEXIST, current state of the article is irrelevant. Clearly meets WP:GNG with reviews listed at MobyGames. More reviews (and a preview) can be found listed at Spectrum Computing: [8] --Mika1h (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read the above reply. Cheers, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 14:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Definitely meets GNG due to the reviews listed on Mobygames/Spectrumcomputing. Waxworker (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See reply to @Timur9008. Best regards, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 14:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be beneficial if the sources discovered during this discussion were assessed for reliability and independence and, if found acceptable, were added to the article under discussion. There seems to be some doubt that they are independent reviews and not just advertising or listing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep.There is a full page review from The Games Machine, which used to be a magazine in English before it shut down in 1990 and an Italian version opened, and it is considered reliable by here. There is another review from the once very long running Computer and Video Games, which discussions here also consider reliable. This source dedicates half of Page 14 and half of Page 15 to this video game, so I would argue it is SIGCOV. Finally, the Cambridge News article linked to above appears to be a reliable newspaper and the entry seems to be a review (not a promotional advertisement) that is borderline SIGCOV. Some of the other sources linked above or I found in my search are situationally/questionably reliable or fails SIGCOV, but there is just enough for a GNG pass IMO. VickKiang (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep editors above have found RS. Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus here and I don't think things will become any clearer additional relistings. Numerically, there are more editors here arguing to Keep this article and their arguments rely on existing reliable sources (although if there are dozens, as is claimed, it wouldn't hurt to add them to the article). Those advocating Deletion claim that this event doesn't have sustained coverage but that is impossible to state definitively when the event is so recent. As an aside, and this just my opinion, this article was brought to AFD too soon, I think the closure might have been diferent if the nominator had waited a month or more after the event when SUSTAINED could be better assessed. I agree that some of these articles are created too soon after an event but they can also be tagged for deletion too quickly. The notability of an article subject often can be more clearly assessed after some time has passed since an incident occurred. Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023 UNRWA school airstrike[edit]

October 2023 UNRWA school airstrike (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 minor event in the ongoing war, damage to a school during an airstrike and not an intentional targeting; not a 'named event' in any sources, no substantive coverage beyond noting that it occurred. – SJ + 20:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not notable, no continuing coverage, wasn't intentional, not many deaths. Mediaexpert3 (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Notable topic, with dozens of sources (international sources) visible in a simple Google search. Per WP:NEXIST, the article quality does not have to be good (seen/confirmed in in 1999 Aïn Témouchent earthquake/AfD). WP:RS articles about the event include, but not limited to: Reuters, The United Nations, Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, UN News, Metro (UK), KELO (South Dakota). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — WP:RAPID discussion much? No PROD occurred prior to AfD being started, no talk page discussion occurred prior to AfD being started, and event occurred a few hours ago. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it ironic when people cite WP:RAPID after blatantly ignoring WP:DELAY, not to mention WP:SUSTAINED and WP:EVENTCRIT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait — It hasn't even been a day since the event took place. We don't know what amount of RS coverage will develop, or if this will become more important due to later events. aismallard (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Weather Event Writer. Significant RS coverage, and it seems likely the article will be expanded as we learn more info. Davey2116 (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Weather Event Writer.--فيصل (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Lots of coverage, possibly because of official UN statements/confirmation. Also. "the casualty count is likely to climb" so there will be more coverage in the future.  selfwormTalk) 23:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant event especially after the al Ahli Hospital airstrike, as the facts of the hospital airstrike come to light, this event could turn out to be related to the hospital airstrike. Keep for at least a week, as the event only took place today and articles related to war shouldn't be deleted this fast. Nori2001 (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability guidelines require sustained coverage. Simply appearing in the news means nothing for notability, otherwise we could have an article for every news story published every day. Saying that it could be notable in the future is also not relevant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Receiving a lot of significant and reliable coverage, enough to satisfy WP:GNG. PopoDameron ⁠talk 23:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has sig coverage and will have more as time passes.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not sustained coverage nor notable enough for a separate article. --RockstoneSend me a message! 10:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - many sources, official UN condemnation , coverage will intensify as time goes on. MarkiPoli (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable topic.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable topic. Ahmed Naji (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or convert into a list for all the airstrikes on refugee camps dring the conflict. --Z 14:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is a notable topic and there are no good reasons for removal Abo Yemen✉ 15:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems significant, particularly in view of hospital explosion only a short time earlier. PatGallacher (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED. The topic received a little coverage immediately after the event, but lacks the sustained coverage needed to comply with those policies. BilledMammal (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BilledMammal: would a reasonable compromise be to merge this article into Attacks on UNRWA during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war (similar to Kidnappings during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war). The analogy is apt because while we won't create a separate article on every kidnapped Israeli, collectively its an important topic. Likewise, collectively Israeli attacks on UNRWA during the war are important and have sustained coverage (and if past is any indication, they will be talked about for years to come, eg see 2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters).VR talk 01:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd name it something different, as that proposed title has some NPOV issues (Israel's position is that it isn't targeting UNRWA but rather Hamas facilities that are build under, in, or around UNRWA locations). However, the concept of that article would be a suitable merge target, if we can find sufficient coverage on that broader topic - I haven't seen any yet, but I also wouldn't be surprised if such coverage existed. BilledMammal (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: After waiting for about a day to see if any further coverage is made to this article, one thing is clear: no sustained coverage was made. HarukaAmaranth 春香 11:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sustained refers to "a sufficiently significant period of time" not a day or two. More useful when looking back in time to see whether an article that was initially kept still deserves to be. Selfstudier (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above reasonings - LoomCreek (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, widely covered, multiple dead, and specifically a UN organization that was impacted. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news. Little, not enough sustained coverage. Would recommend it be merged with other incidents, if not. Recommend deletion. Homerethegreat (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A United Nations building, a refugee school at that, being hit by an airstrike with confirmed casualties is not at all insignificant Salmoonlight (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete (merge with 2023 Israel–Hamas war) for the following reasons:
    • WP:NOTE - This article is a single (2 sentence) paragraph that wouldn't warrant it's own subsection, let alone article.
    • WP:SUSTAINED - Notability guidelines require sustained coverage.
    • WP:NOTNEWS - Wikipedia values enduring notability over mere newsworthiness, and while news can serve as source material, most newsworthy events don’t qualify for inclusion due to Wikipedia’s non-news style.
    • WP:EVENTCRIT - Editors should guard against recentism as current events may seem more important initially than they do in hindsight, often due to varying criteria between news outlets and Wikipedia. When evaluating an event's notability for a Wikipedia article, it's essential to assess its enduring historical significance, coverage extent, and impact, considering factors like depth, duration, geographical scope, etc..
    • WP:DELAY - We should avoid hastily writing articles on breaking news, as initial reports might lack depth and offer a skewed perspective, potentially leading to recentism. Instead, consider first adding information about the event to a related existing article. If the event proves to be notably significant over time, it can subsequently be given its own dedicated article.

- Yaakovaryeh (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a head’s up, WP:NOTE is overruled by WP:NEXIST (evidence and precedent for that was listed above — Aka a 2 sentence, unsourced article survived AfD on NEXIST grounds). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: Thank you for the reference; however, I'm not just going based on what exists in this article, but rather what exists period [I.E. the sources covering the story mostly just quote the short statement from the UN, that's pretty much it for the story].
Additionally, looking over at the case you provided, the arguments made there doesn't seem to hold here, and in fact highlight why this article here fails WP:NOTE. The opinion over there stated (emphasis mine):

"I've reviewed the two papers listed in further reading and they both provide in depth SIGCOV of the subject, the papers are entirely about this earthquake. The papers were published in 2004 and 2009, this 1999 event demonstrates WP:PERSISTENCE"

This story has received neither in depth/detailed coverage, and certainly not WP:PERSISTENCE.
Another important distinction is that this was a standalone event, whereas this is a relatively minor event within a larger event, making this unnecessary WP:Content forking. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - suspect it is just WP:TOOSOON to tell which events in this fast-moving situation will have ongoing resonance, and it isn't the job of en.wiki to decide. JMWt (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG and 6 dead is of some consequence (not mentioned by nom for some reason) Selfstudier (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This appears to have been nominated within six hours of its creation with nary a hint of discussion on its talk page, and presumably before the subsequent coverage could be weighed. Seems pre-emptive and perfunctory. Yes, there's lots of news going up now, and not all of it develops WP:SUSTAINED relevance, but once something has been put up, better to wait and see how it develops. Here the topic is more generally notable as a strike on a school that is clear civilian and UN infrastructure, i.e. one of the more tangible war crimes out of many in the conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article entirely duplicates content already in 2023 Israel–Hamas war; On 17 October, the IDF carried out an airstrike on a UNRWA school sheltering 4,000 refugees in the Al-Maghazi refugee camp, killing six and injuring dozens. Philippe Lazzarini, the UNRWA Commissioner-General, called the attack "outrageous" and showing "a flagrant disregard for the lives of civilians. It also partially duplicates content in several other articles, such as 2023 in the State of Palestine. Given that we already have all of this information elsewhere it doesn't make sense to have a standalone article. BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That depends on whether the material is maintained on those other pages, and if the weight does not decrease with time, and also on whether this page is expanded, which it could be. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    also on whether this page is expanded, which it could be How about we redirect this article, and if additional coverage is produced that would enable it to be expanded we restore it at that time? BilledMammal (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about we await the result of the AfD? Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was making a suggestion that I hoped would be a reasonable compromise we could agree on within this AfD. BilledMammal (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect is a possible outcome, you are the only one suggesting it however and you have actually !voted delete. Why is a compromise necessary anyway? Articles like this are created all the time and not usually deleted. Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Routine event in a war, and more importantly no sustained coverage. This short blurb is based on basically the same press release from the day of the event. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I must have missed the point in history when bombing UN schools became routine ... Or maybe it occurred over the course of this conflict ... Iskandar323 (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This story comes from just one report and had zero sustainable coverage. It could be added to a list of airstrikes during the war, as there's no need for separate articles for each one.Eladkarmel (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Yaakovaryeh. Loksmythe (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sustained coverage, and what coverage there was is superficial Arkon (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I am surprised that the article was nominated for deletion! Knowing that the article was nominated on the basis that targeting the school was not intentional!! Please do not consider the statements of the Israeli army as neutral. Israeli statements cannot be considered neutral in this case. There are comments saying that the number of deaths is not large!! Is the killing of 6 civilians in the targeting of a school belonging to an international party normal? The article meets the criteria.--— Osama Eid (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, possibly into Maghazi (camp) or the main war article. Doesn't seem like there's much coverage on it, outside of breaking news reports. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 14:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the propaganda war clearly reaches Wikipedia as well, with some POV editors intent on silencing "uncomfortable" truths as the unfounded nomination proves. But Wikipedia is not supposed to be a propaganda outlet, and there is no doubt that this is notable. Neither can User:Sj prove his claim that the attack was "unintentional" apart from official statements from Israeli spokesmen, and even if it was it wouldn't be a reason for silencing it. --Te og kaker (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remember to WP:Assume good faith. The original poster and other contributors put forth several points that deserve consideration and response. Accusations or assumptions about others' motives, such as suggesting they are engaging in propaganda, aren't conducive to the collaborative and respectful environment we strive for on Wikipedia. It would be significantly more constructive to address the specific arguments made, providing evidence and citing guidelines as necessary, to ensure the discussion remains focused on improving the encyclopedia. This way, we can work together toward a consensus that reflects both Wikipedia’s standards and the verifiable information available on the topic. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is roughly evenly divided, hopefully not on the basis of views on this war but based on policy and sourcing. Discounting that this might be viewed as a "minor event", this was one incident of conflict in a larger war. As we've recently discovered at AFD with incidents during the conflict in Ukraine, not every incident, however terrible, warrants a standalone article so are there thoughts on where this content might be Merged to as an ATD? Just raising the question as opinion seems deadlocked right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it wasn't clear: I wrote "minor" only in the context of a war with thousands of casualties and hundreds of fully destroyed buildings, not because death in war is ever minor. Damage to one building and 6 deaths, with no other details, when we have only a couple dozen articles on any individual attack or battle in the war, is less than what normally makes for a standalone article. – SJ + 01:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is indicative of something else, namely Israeli strikes on UNRWA schools in general. Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Might be better to Broaden the scope of the article to address this. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It already is merged into at least 5 articles:

The only "keep" arguments that potentially address issues like WP:SUSTAINED, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:SIGCOV, etc., were based on assumptions that have not been borne out:
  • "coverage will intensify as time goes on"
  • "there will be more coverage in the future"
  • "it seems likely the article will be expanded as we learn more info"
  • "Keep for at least a week, as the event only took place today and articles related to war shouldn't be deleted this fast"

Aside from the speculative nature of this type of reasoning, in the more than a week since the event, there has been little (if any) significant additional coverage beyond the initial, brief news stories quoting UNWRA. Given the unfortunately escalating nature of the conflict and the occurrence of more significant incidents since then, it's increasingly unlikely that this will be recognized as a major event. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to California Western Railroad. In the event this isn't maintained within the target, it can be handled at RfD. However at the moment it is, and there's weak support for the AtD here. Star Mississippi 02:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soda Springs (near Burbeck), Mendocino County, California[edit]

Soda Springs (near Burbeck), Mendocino County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Non-notable flag railway stop with no population. This is one of dozens of mass-created articles on non-notable California locations made only from GNIS coordinates, by the same user during a few-week period in 2009. No evidence that this site was ever populated, failing WP:GEOLAND; another user added two references after my PROD but both are passing mentions just confirming that there was once a railroad stop with this name. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your first claim is simply your opinion, but it goes against a great deal of consensus. We have deleted any number of such GNIS-based landmarks because of misidentification, and we have quite consistently taken the position that a named spot on the railroad is not notable per se. Neither is it "useful" to simply enumerate places about which we know essentially nothing except their name and location; such entries are simply clutter.
As far as redirecting to rail lines, we have done that on occasion. I am generally opposed because, again, we can't say beans about these places, and if the railroad article doesn't mention them, it's a bad redirect in any case. Mangoe (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, our California Western Railroad article mentions this stop. That article would make a good redirect target if a redirect is desired.
We have redirected mass-created station stop articles in the past to their associated rail lines. Most recently were a number of flag stops in the Manitoba wilderness. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Silcox station
I'm not recommending a redirect for now - I'm just saying that redirecting to the railroad article is not a bad idea in this case.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not mortally opposed to a redirect, but the problem is how unlikely it would be that someone would search for this term. "Soda Springs" is a pretty generic name, and California has a much better-known Soda Springs near Lake Tahoe. Even the name of the article has to specify "(near Burbeck)", as if that helps. This place is so non-notable I can't imagine anyone ever thinking to look for information on it, and if for some reason they did, they would probably start with California Western Railroad anyway. A redirect is pointless clutter, as Mangoe said. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irmulco, California[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This location is non-notable; coordinates given lccate to empty forest. This is one of dozens of mass-created stubs on nonexistent California locations created by the same editor during a short period in 2009, based only on GNIS coordinates. The fact that there was once a post office by this name does not establish notability; this was likely just a temporary logging camp. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC) I'm going to withdraw my recommendation that the article be deleted. Another user has added some reasonably good sourcing and I think the article now has enough to keep. The article's current state is exactly how articles about small vanished communities should be...i.e., not just "Xyz is a location at zzz coordinates, and it had a post office in 1858". WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This an example of place which was definitely "there" in some sense but about which we can't really say anything definite. We can't even really characterize it well. I've found one reference to a public school there, and another passing reference to people living there, but as the nom here says, the name and location tends to suggest it was a logging camp of perhaps greater than usual permanence. There's some possibility that a history of the logging railroad might have more information, but without that it's hard to defend keeping this. Mangoe (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like many places in the American west, it was a settlement for as long as the mineral seam lasted, or the lumber mill was hiring, etc, and then when the industrial or commercial interest checked out, it faded away, but it was a substantial settlement for a time in a thinly populated part of the world. It's part of the answer to the question "where did the redwoods go?" and I think it's notable enough to stay. jengod (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that places like this shouldn't be erased from history, but we need reliable sources about them if we're going to host an article saying anything. All we have is a couple of statements that it was a point on a railroad map and there was a short-lived post office in the vicinity, neither of which cuts it for WP:N purposes. If anyone can find more, then of course we can keep the article and say more. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Thank you for expanding the article; this is exactly what we need! WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Norman, California[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This location is just a named railway point with no population. One of dozens of stubs on nonexistent or non-notable California locations created in a short period by the same user, based on nothing but GNIS coordinates (which do not establish notability). The fact that there was once a post office does not contribute to notability, since pre-1900 rural post offices in the US were often nothing more than private residences. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This shows yet another limitation of the GNIS methodology, which is that they located the place by the label's location on the map, which is naturally in wherever there is a convenient blank spot on the map. The actual Norman, the topos made clear, was a siding on the west side of the tracks, and all the buildings indicated (except one latecomer) were on the west side of the road. Naturally the label ended up in the field east of all this. The oldest aerial shows a few buildings along the E-W road, all of them wiped out by construction of the exit ramps when the road was relocated. I don't see enough here to suggest this was an actual town. Mangoe (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to having a post office in the 19th century. (Durham, David L. (1998). California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State. Clovis, Calif.: Word Dancer Press. p. 285.) बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the nomination statement? US post offices back in the day were not necessarily in settlements. Mangoe (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence that this was actually a settlement, much less a notable one. Sources only describe a post office and railway station. –dlthewave ☎ 11:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Post offices could be (and actually may still be) temporary facilities established in stores or even individual homes, and are not evidence of legal recognition. GNIS does not prove legal recognition per WP:GEOLAND. Maps also can't be used to show legal recognition - they just indicate a point on the map. People who lived near this point on the map also do not show notability. It goes without saying that a phot of an eclipse proves nothing about the site. FOARP (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copper City, Glenn County, California[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No mention or evidence of this location has been found anywhere to show that it was populated; known only from a GNIS entry (which does not establish notability). This is one of dozens of similar stub articles on nonexistent or non-notable California locations created by the same user during a short period in 2009, based only on GNIS entries. Another user has added two references since my PROD, but neither one mentions Copper City at all. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Searching is heavily masked by the other much more notable spot in Shasta County, about which there is considerable material; in contrast, the one citation in the article which leads to anything other than listings is to a (dead) genealogical site, which cites nothing itself. The reliability of these is very dicey. Mangoe (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There just ain't no there there. A mining camp that according to the article "dissipated nearly as quickly as it sprung up" is not any kind of actual community, much less one with the legal recognition required by GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I initially contested the PROD but the online paper trail as of 2023 is too thin to defend it. Au revoir, Copper City, Glenn County (originally Colusa County). jengod (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gerardo Ablaza[edit]

Gerardo Ablaza (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)

Man with a job. No indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources seem to only mention him as someone with a job, as OP said. You could make a similar article about anyone who is mentioned on a few professional websites. ForksForks (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Bore (engine). Star Mississippi 02:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bore pitch[edit]

Bore pitch (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 searched but it was hard to tell whether this is notable - it has been uncited for over a decade Chidgk1 (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Transportation. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This might be at the wrong title, but I'm not sure why we'd need to remove an article explaining a mechanical engineering parameter. I got true positives for both "bore pitch" and "bore spacing" at Google Scholar, TWL, Gale Academic, and Springer. Got results for "bore spacing" at Jstor. Close to twenty inbound links to the article, and I'm not seeing a suitable merge target, with the caveat that I'm not a mechanical engineering.
    I think this is clearly an engineering concept we should explain somewhere, even if it's not important enough to earn its own academic studies or book chapters. Folly Mox (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Bore (engine). The Bore article is very short and sweet, but this is clearly a closely related concept that doesn't need a separate article. Some of the content is unencyclopedic but the topic should be at least mentioned at target. --‡ El cid, el campeador talk 19:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge never goes out fo style. Two short articles related to each other are ripe for a merger. Prefer to merge over deletion. Bearian (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Schnitzer[edit]

Jordan Schnitzer (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)

Seems to be WP:TOOSOON for an article at the moment as I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources to meet WP:GNG. Perhaps he may become notable once he plays in the Olympics next summer. JTtheOG (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • That may be fair, although I will share my rationale for creating this article now and why I think it makes sense to leave the stub article as created and active. My understanding of volleyball notability comes from past discussions Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_24#Volleyball_notability_proposal_2. This year's 2023 FIVB Volleyball Men's Olympic Qualification Tournaments is actually serving as the 2023 Volleyball Men's World Cup which meets this criteria for his inclusion on Wikipedia. There is some third party coverage of his contributions in this tournament, including his 10 points against China which were the third highest in the match for Canada. link and link 2. I will try to add this into the article. For now this is the summary of my defence for the inclusion of the article as it is now. Words in the Wind(talk) 17:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify or Userfy: WP:NOTJUSTYET, allow him play in the next summer, it should be good to go by then. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good, I have moved to draft now. Feel free to delete and I may recreate once the Olympic teams are named shortly before the games. Words in the Wind(talk) 20:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Words in the Wind Looks like you forgot to draftify? I will urge you to draftify since you're the original creator of the article. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Draft:Jordan_Schnitzer Words in the Wind(talk) 20:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hey man im josh or @Liz, creator created a draft copy for preservation till subject passes notability. Can this be closed as moved to draft by creator. Although, they didn't actually move it. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draftify Clearly not yet notable enough per WP:GNG, which is the applicable guideline here. Whether they become notable in the foreseeable future, I don't know, and in any case this is only speculation. So technically should probably be deleted, but I can live with draftifying also. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draftify, obviously without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he attains greater notability. Simply qualifying for the Olympics isn't an instant notability freebie anymore, so we require a lot more WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him (which is not the same thing as "coverage that happens to glance off his name in the process of being fundamentally about something else") to get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Purple Tribute[edit]

Deep Purple Tribute (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 album exists, but there doesn't appear to any significant mentions in independent reliable sources. The band, Cactus Jack, have a dubious notability, though the article on the band, Cactus Jack (band), survived an AfD (no consensus) in 2010. SilkTork (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although currently they are not very significant, Cactus Jack were a very prominent act of the Serbian rock scene in the 2000s. The album was mentioned in the last two editions of Petar Janjatović's Ex YU Rock Enciklopedija, the most important book on rock scenes of Yugoslavia and successor countries. All other releases by the band have their own articles. Ostalocutanje (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on the author, Petar Janjatović, and an article on the book, Ex YU rock enciklopedija 1960–2006, which is a good indicator of the reliability of that source. I did note, however, in our article on the book, that it says: "The book also contains basic information about a large number of less notable acts", and that while the Serbian Wikipedia has an article on the band, Cactus Jack, it doesn't have an article on this Deep Purple Tribute album, so a mention in Janjatović's book may not in itself be an indication of notability. And even if the album were written about in depth in the book, per WP:NALBUMS, we prefer to have multiple reliable sources. Given that the album does not appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:NALBUMS, nor in WP:GNG, and there is no article on the Serbian Wikipedia, it may be more appropriate to do as WP:GNG suggests and what the Serbian Wikipedia have done, and that is to merge relevant information about the Deep Purple Tribute album into the Cactus Jack (band) album. SilkTork (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basic information about less notable acts in Janjatović's encyclopedia are included in the articles about more notable related acts. When it comes to Cactus Jack, they do have their own article in the book. (I'm not sure if this information is of any relevance for the discussion.) Ostalocutanje (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Serbia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Notability of the performer(s) has nothing to do with that of their recording as per WP:NALBUM. Currently there isn't any sign of notability whatsoever of the subject, no news outlets, passing mentions, nor reviews. At that time news were published through paper, sources may exist, until such is listed the article should be draftified for incubation. dxneo (talk) 08:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient. A redirect to List of biology awards#Ecology does not have strong support and therefore I have not implemented it, but can be done as a matter of editorial decision. Star Mississippi 02:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marsh Ecology Award[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Marsh Ecology Award (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general notability policy. Merging to Marsh Charitable Trust could be acceptable. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Biology, and Environment. UtherSRG (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rebadge as a List Article. Since it is "given by the Marsh Charitable Trust and the British Ecological Society in cooperation" it wouldn't be helpful to merge it into one or the other of those, and as a list it makes perfectly good sense and is even rather decently cited, as lists go. The organisations are reputable and the material is quite notable enough for a list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just can't find sufficient coverage to demonstrate that this award is notable. Virtually all the coverage other than the organizations' own announcements consists of press releases from the institutions that employ the award winners. I couldn't find any substantial coverage of the award in independent sources. Certainly no independent reliable sources that discuss the history of awardees as a group or set, and therefore converting this to a list is also inappropriate per WP:NLIST. Jfire (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I would support a redirect to List of biology awards#Ecology paired with the creation and population of Category:Marsh Ecology Award laureates. Jfire (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhbruun, Actualcpscm, and WeirdNAnnoyed: pinging participants in the prior AfD (closed no consensus). Jfire (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No strong opinion. I think satisfying GNG will always be a problem with discipline-specific awards, publications, etc. like this one, which don't attract much attention outside their own communities. I guess a merge to the list of awards as suggested by Jfire would be appropriate. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as all possible outcomes (Merge, Redirect, Keep and Delete) have been proposed here along with several different target articles. I don't like to see a renomination just hours after a previous AFD has been closed but I guess with a No Consensus closure, that isn't unreasonable. It's just that sometimes a bit more time (weeks, months, etc.) between visits to AFD can be effective at arriving at a more firm consensus outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Could not find SIGCOV to establish notability. Both of the previous !Keep votes ran on the reasoning that "the hosting organizations/recipients are notable", which does not help since notability is not inherited. As for merging, all the other awards in List of biology awards have their own article (At least for now, although admittedly some of these awards only cited primary sources and/or trivial mentions as sources). I don't see the point of having an award that can not pass notability guideline occupying a space in that list. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL. As an editor here for 16 years in ecology and energy law articles, being a twice-honored member of the Sierra Club and awarded the volunteer of the year award from Hostelling International, and having taught the subject many times, I can state that I've never heard of this. There are many such awards, and most of them, like mine, are run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 1 November 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 and move to Neptunian exoplanet. Daniel (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Neptunian exoplanets[edit]

List of Neptunian exoplanets (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)

Why is there no list for gas giants, Super-Earths or terrestrial planets? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also confused by deletion rationales here. Some want to delete this because we don't have certain other articles. Others want to delete this because we do have certain other articles. That makes it sound like this list is a necessary sweet spot, which is reinforced by the fact that this category of exoplanets is specifically discussed in RS. However, if there's a strong merge target I'm receptive to the idea. —siroχo 20:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are only five things on the list, and not much information here. Why not merge all the exoplanets together? Why have these five on their own? Dream Focus 20:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of exoplanets says "there are 5,528 confirmed exoplanets", and the big list is already broken up by year of discovery. This list provides a different informational/navigational view, which would otherwise require looking through those multiple lists and depending on the reader's own expertise, possibly reading through multiple articles. I am open to merging if there's a good target, but I don't see one right now. In lieu of a merge, if someone wants to move this to Neptunian exoplanet and use the introduction and the base for a new article that includes a list, that might work at this time. —siroχo 21:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to MRTV-4#Television series. Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Myittar Athel Mywar[edit]

Myittar Athel Mywar (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 doubt the subject passes GNG or WP:TVSERIES. The listed citations either fail RS or SPS. This article had already been draftified and subsequently restored, so deletion is the only course. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎ leaning keep. Daniel (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carles Duarte i Montserrat[edit]

Carles Duarte i Montserrat (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 highly decorated monument to the subject does not contain as much citation as decoration. No political elected role or appointment, scant assertion of notability as a poet or writer, no enduring impact on the arts as an artist - although has held a number of administrative roles in arts organisations. The first source in the article is sourced to an article based on Wikipedia, which is always an impressive achievement - but the second source is to Wikipedia itself, which rather trumps the first triumph. The third source is to a list of appointments, the fourth - Diari de Girona - is a routine appointment announcement (and identifies the subject as a regular contributor to Diari de Girona) while the fifth is the announcement of an award for "unconditional support" to the publications collected by the Catalan Regional Press Association. The final source, possibly the only contribution we have here to potential notability, is for "The poet and linguist Carles Duarte, president of the National Council for Culture and the Arts, has won the 2014 Ramon Fuster award for his civic, cultural and literary career." However I could find no evidence that the award itself (conferring 3,000 Euro) is itself notable. The subject's Catalan WP article is virtually unsourced, BTW. WP:BEFORE shows no body of critical review, no evidence we pass WP:GNG, let alone the four criteria of WP:ARTIST. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i completely agree with all what you said, of course it is possible to find all references you ask for, but right now i haven't enough time to do it, so Ishall return it to user:mcapdevila and wait for better times with plenty of references..Thanks for your honest advice.. Mcapdevila (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Article needs better sourcing but there do appear to be signs of possible notability, eg president of Catalonia Foundation, cofounder and "director" (whatever that neans) of Journal of Language and Law. There's a lot of publications; have none of them received reviews? Some of the awards might also be of interest, eg "Chevalier des arts et des lettres of the "French Republic"" -- is that Chevalier of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres?. There might be a problem with the name if sources call the subject "Carles Duarte"; there are 67 hits for this in Proquest search, but all I looked at were not in English. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- maybe more notable than the English article indicates. In the Spanish Wikipedia we can read:

Cargos ocupados Presidente de Fundació Catalunya (1983-1989) Secretaría General de la Presidencia de la Generalidad de Cataluña (1999-2003) Director de Fundació Carulla (2003-2016) President of Catalan Council for Arts and Culture (2012-2019) Director general de Institució Cultural del CIC (desde 2016)

These seem to add up to notability. Athel cb (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: You have to dig a bit, but the good results show up on page 3 of the Gscholar resutls. [14] is a review from a Romanian journal circa 1990, covered in this book [15]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strike Social[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business news and PR. scope_creepTalk 12:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every single of these fail WP:SIRS. Paid profiles, the company moving fails and Techncrunch is non-RS. This editor has 6 edits. scope_creepTalk 20:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets look at the refs:
Ref 1: Paywalled.
Ref 2: [20] PR. Moving HQ. Its junk and not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 3: [21] This is a profile. It is not indepedent, taken from website. Its fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 4: [22] Providing the analytics for some reason. It is not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 5: [23] This reporting on Forbes X of Y article. It is non-rs.
Ref 6: [24] This is the actual Forbes X of Y article. It is non-rs.
Ref 7: [25] Moving HQ. fails WP:SIRS
Ref 8: [26] Interview with the founder. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 9: [27] Forbes contributor. Non-RS.
Ref 10 [28] It is pure junk. WP:PRIMARY. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 11 [29] WP:PRIMARY. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 12 [30] Paid profile. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 13 [31] Paid Profile. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 14 [www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160707/ISSUE01/160709991/why-this-digital-ad-buying-startup-moved-to-chicago] Moving and interview and PR. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND.

Not a single source is valid enough to pass WP:NCORP. It is an brochure advertising article. scope_creepTalk 20:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a non-notable organisation, the article puffed out with flaky sources and the smell of advertising. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reviewing the assement by Scope Creep, I would agree that references fail WP:SIRS. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Camhe[edit]

Beverly Camhe (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 producer. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BLP. References are stonkingly bad. Terrible, absolutely terrible. scope_creepTalk 09:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Klady, Leonard (1994-11-21). "Junior". Variety. Retrieved 2023-10-17.
  2. ^ Staff, T. H. R. (2013-04-20). "In God We Trust: Tribeca Review". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2023-10-17.
  3. ^ Dargis, Manohla (August 11, 2006). "Searching for a Spiritual Shangri La in 'The Celestine Prophecy'". The New York Times.
  4. ^ Canby, Vincent (June 10, 1987). "FILM: 'THE BELIEVERS,' FROM JOHN SCHLESINGER". The New York Times.
  5. ^ Stein, George (1989-08-29). "'The Package': A $16-Million Gamble on the Fear of Peace". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2023-10-17.
  6. ^ "Cbs Plans 'Celestine' Miniseries | The Spokesman-Review". www.spokesman.com. Retrieved 2023-10-17.
  7. ^ Fleming, Michael (2000-03-23). "Sandler laffer at NL; Close open to HBO live". Variety. Retrieved 2023-10-17.
  • 'Comment The sourcing is problematic for this editor. It could indeed be notable with a bit of work. See what other folk think. scope_creepTalk 15:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep Again, I have added references to other articles that had few or no references in the past in order to help improve them. I have also submitted a handful of pages the past 6 years and included the references I found while thinking other editors would contribute and improve those articles. The pages I have submitted seem more notable than many existing pages. Attacking the sourcing as a reason to delete seems arbitrary and almost like a vendetta because it is a page I wrote... Stravensky (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Stravensky: How goes it? No, that is how its done at Afd. You examine the sources in the article, to see if they follow the criteria of the notability, in this case WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. We will take a look at them tommorrow and see what they say. scope_creepTalk 23:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a page, it is an article. Completely different things. The most problematic of the articles you wrote were listed at the WP:COI noticeboard. I checked them and sent all the ones I thought were non-notable to Afd. scope_creepTalk 23:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Mooonswimmer: Is there good reviews of her work? She may well be notable. scope_creepTalk 16:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, plenty of reviews covering the films. Note that they aren't really her works but rather works you could argue she played a significant role in creating as a producer, which would make her notable per WP:PRODUCER. Also worth noting that she is credited as "executive producer" on Junior and In God::: We Trust. Mooonswimmer 17:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yip, I thought it might be something else. I don't think that is enough. Its very slim and the coverage is very poor. scope_creepTalk 17:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of what, her role in the inception of the films? Mooonswimmer 17:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Producers don't really do well on Wikipedia unless they have some kind of external notability to the work they do, that can pass WP:SIGCOV. Generally the artcles are deleted unless really wide coverage. Looking at this, for example [32], this wouldn't be significant. It is not a good ref to prove notabilty. It is really just a passing mention at best. I'll look at these ref and the first block tommorrow. scope_creepTalk 18:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that the reference isn't an example of significant coverage. All the articles I provided are simply to source the fact that she was a producer on those films.
My understanding of WP:PRODUCER is that the subject (producer, DoP, composer) is notable if they've created or played a major role in making a notable film. The film itself is what should be covered in multiple independent sources. Camhe is credited as an executive producer on a few of the films, and it's true that it's not exactly a creative role, hence my "Weak" keep vote.
In terms of significant coverage on Camhe herself or works she was the principal creator of, I haven't really found much coverage. Lots of passing mentions but nothing significant. Mooonswimmer 01:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, As per WP:BIO, the subject needs to be standalone notable. Here the subject fails all of the three criteria defined in WP:BIO which I always knew. scope_creepTalk 09:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No she doesn't. There is isn't even a decent interview nevermind a WP:SECONDARY source. scope_creepTalk 18:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I reply "Oh but yes she does', we can go on forever, can't we? Just read the guideline. No further comment. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What guideline exacly? scope_creepTalk 09:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets examine the sources:
Ref 1 IMDB is non-rs in this instance.
Ref 2 [33] This is own blog. It is WP:SPIP source.
Ref 3 [34] Mentions she is the producer. Passing mention.
Ref 4 [35] Database generated profile showing the the films that Camhe has produced. Its not independent nor significant.
Ref 5 [36] Passing mention as exec producer.
Ref 6 [37] Behind a firewall.
Ref 7 [38] writer and producer Beverly Camhe, passing mention.
Ref 8 [39] Passing mention.

Per WP:BLP, it states Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources None of the these high-quality sources. Most of them are passing mentions. WP:BIO has three criteria , this subject fails all of them. It doesn't even meet WP:THREE. scope_creepTalk 18:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - She does not meet WP:GNG as there is absolutely no significant coverage I can find that would be usable on Wikipedia outside of a page that lists her credits. There are passing mentions and credits which show she was part of the films so I evaluated based on WP:NPRODUCER. Note that just producing a film does not mean someone meets this guideline. The page says she "produced" the film Junior, when in fact she was one of several executive producers for a film that was actually "produced" by Ivan Reitman as shown in this reference. She was listed as a producer for the Celestine Prophecy as shown in this reference, which makes her one of five producers for the film. Producers take many forms and do not always play a "major role." Absent a reference saying that she did play a major role in the films listed on the page, she would fail notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as though she is in the production team as opposed to actually leading the production team and not senior enough to get the producer credit, which may have helped. I think pretty its clear now that she is non-notable. scope_creepTalk 10:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote to delete. Mooonswimmer 12:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to delete considering the fact that on most of the films, she was one of multiple producers, and that she is credited as "executive" producer, which is less of a creative role. Mooonswimmer 12:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of predictions[edit]

List of predictions (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 perfect example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Mangoe (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An incoherent mashup of various types of predictions, from scientific hypotheses to a prediction that aircraft would take millions of years to invent. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the full news article on that just in case it seemed interesting: LINK PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Science, Economics, Social science, and Technology. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'd be more inclined to keep this if it was sourced. Little to no sourcing, predicting this gets deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It list incorrect predictions such as the one that it would take "one to ten million years for humanity to develop an operating flying machine." The scientific predictions make no sense at all. Scientists mention what they believe is true, and later evidence is found to prove it. This list just has a lot of nonsense on it. Category:Prediction exist, but that's just any book that ever predicted anything, some of them coming true, and others not. Dream Focus 17:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The topic itself (the subject of the list) must be notable. Major predictions are notable.
  2. Individual list items must be properly referenced. If they already have their own properly-referenced articles and those articles support inclusion in the list, that suffices. Otherwise, items have to be properly referenced. They do not have to be individually notable on their own.
This article meets the first criterion and many of the items meet the second criterion. Items that don't meet #2 should removed until referenced.
This leaves WP:SALAT ("Appropriate topics for lists"):
  • "To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the size and scope of lists."
Over the long run, this list's criteria are too open-ended but that doesn't mean the article has to be deleted now. We are required by our deletion policy to consider alternatives to deletion (WP:ATD); I see 3 possibilities:
  1. Clean up the current list. For now, let it grow as is until it's too big, then subdivide it into smaller lists.
  2. Clean up the current list and impose some sort of limitation on the criteria, such as only predictions notable enough to have their own article. Also, define "predictions" ("predictions of events likely to have a national or global effect", etc.)
  3. Go ahead now and split the list into smaller sub-lists with well-defined criteria. One possibility is to just use the article's section headings as potential sub-lists.
As for Category:Prediction, I believe a category is inadequate as an ATD. This is because the general reading public may not know about our categories or how to use them to find things.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see anything on the list worth keeping? There are a vast number of science fiction books published every year predicting something. Any economic thing that could possibly happen is predicted by someone, and some of them will thus have to be right. Dream Focus 22:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was going to make this a reply to the above, but it is clear enough that a !vote makes sense. WP:NLIST is part of WP:N which is very clear that We require the existence of "reliable sources" so that we can be confident that we're not [...] posting indiscriminate collections of information. (shortcut WP:WHYN). The formulation of this page is the very definition of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Page history is instructive, with none of the original predictions remaining in the article, and significant churn. There is no significant collection on which such a list can be based or sustained. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is a random collection on information. List articles can be useful as a navigation aid, as providing links to similar-subject articles, but not in this case. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Techincally, this is a WP:SNOW keep and a withdrawal. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thin Ice (2020 TV series)[edit]

Thin Ice (2020 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced stub on a TV show. PROD concern was:

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2021
— User:Donaldd23 17:13, 23 October 2023‎

DePRODded by Necrothesp (talk · contribs) at 15:27, 24 October 2023 with no explanation except, take to AfD.‎ –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, France, Iceland, and Sweden. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes W:GNG with coverage such as these [40][41][42] Alvaldi (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It has also got plenty of english sources, such as [43][44]. I'v addied them all to the article. @LaundryPizza03, would you consider withdrawing the nomination? Alvaldi (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:SK#3, we would have to wait until a WP:SNOW closure is possible. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. On a sidenote, there is also coverage in the Swedish media such as [45][46]. Alvaldi (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep. When I created it it looked like it would be more than a single season and a good example of something not anglocentric. I'm not greatly bothered about it other than as an inclusionist. --AlisonW (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable after references added by @Alvaldi who has performed a real WP:HEYMAN.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Its improvement illustrates perfectly the weakness of the prodding system. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per improvements made after nom. per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close‎. The mainspace page ceased to exist. The discussion has been mooted by the obligatory redraftification of the page as a reversal of WP:PAGEMOVEVANDALism which had been done as a form of WP:VANDTYPES#Gaming the system to evade the requirement to edit DS/CTOP articles likely involving sockpuppetry as noted in the block log. A discussion about content can be continued on the draft's talk page. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 21:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism in Palestinian society[edit]

Nazism in Palestinian society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
Note: this article has been moved to draftspace: The draft is located at Draft:Nazism in Palestinian society Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have a very strong feeling that, referencing notwithstanding, this is WP:OR and/or WP:SOAPBOX with special regard to current events in that geographic region. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:SYNTH, one of several recent WP:SOAPBOX style articles created in response to the Israel–Hamas war. The idea that there's a notable Nazi movement in Palestinian society gives the impression of WP:FRINGE. And while this isn't an AfD thing, it's worth noting that this particular article was created by a non-EC editor who became active almost immediately after the war began. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This was sensibly moved to draft and then also immediately moved back to mainspace by an EC but otherwise very new user. This should have stayed in draft, bare minimum, until the issued raised on the talk page were addressed. As a mainspace article, the response should be speedy delete it. The alternative would be to speedy re-draft it, but this time with page move protections to stop these shenaningans being repeating. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draftify per nom and Iskandar. Unlike Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany, this kinda feels underdeveloped, as a random collection of examples (c.f WP:SYNTH) that don't really cohere into a meaningful article. As the primary work of a non-ECP editor, and moved into mainspace by an editor who gamed their ECP, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Is_this_a_WP:GAME_violation?, I also think it's a violation of the ECP restriction on the Israel Palestine topic area. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator Comment: Having taken a further look at the article I am increasingly certain that WP:SYNTH is present. I am concerned, too, about the timing of this article. It appears to me to be a thinly disguised disparagement of people of a particular ethnicity, an attack page albeit a reasonably sophisticated one. Propaganda. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article is largely an essay presenting the author's point of view. There is probably some encyclopedic material, but this is at the point where it should be blown up and possibly started over, or possibly not started over.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per others, seems like a collection of random events and quite obviously created in response to the recent war. Also created by a non-ECP editor in violation of editing restrictions. Not convinced of notability either, and seems a bit of a fringe view. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've requested a speedy resolution due to the underlying cause of this AfD being a disruptive move (this page would have been a draft but for a now blocked user).—Alalch E. 21:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All set. Let me know if I missed anything. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. —Alalch E. 21:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish Perhaps closing the AfD would round it off? 😇 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John E. Warriner[edit]

John E. Warriner (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 seems to fail NAUTHOR, ANYBIO, and GNG. While well-regarded by some in his field, only the obit actually focuses on the subject. While Warriner's textbook might be notable, Warriner as an author is probably not. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Michigan. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:GNG states: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Since that is clearly the case here, the burden of overcoming the presumption of notability lies with the editor disputing it. In other words, the onus is on the nominator to explain why, in his view, the subject is not notable. Finally, quoting from WP:NAUTHOR: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." The article makes such a claim. Curiously the nominator appears even to stipulate that the first prong of WP:NAUTHOR is met ("The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers") with the statement "While well-regarded by some in his field" Tito Omburo (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A New York Times obituary (not paid death notice) is by itself a strong indicator of GNG notability, and this appears to be one of those rare cases where an academic is notable through WP:PROF#C4 as well (judging by the Times pull quote "one of the best selling series in textbook publishing history". We would need published reviews for a third notability criterion, WP:AUTHOR, but that seems plausible as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gosh, it's been a while since we've had a WP:PROF#C4 case, but it looks like this qualifies. And the reviews plus the Times obit add up to a WP:AUTHOR pass, I'd say. XOR'easter (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seems a clear pass of GNG & AUTHOR based on material now present in the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article as it was prior to nomination already demonstrated notability. The additional refs just reinforce this.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Lourdes Heras-de Leon[edit]

Maria Lourdes Heras-de Leon (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)

Woman with a job. No indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a case of inherited notability. "Oh, she's the president of Company X, which has its own Wikipedia article." This barely even mentions her name and is the only source I could find. TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 06:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella title[edit]

Umbrella title (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 is nothing more than an extended dictionary definition. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Most of the sources use the word "umbrella" exactly once, and none appear to discuss this as a broad topic. LittlePuppers (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 12:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky (Indian TV series)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Tagged for notability since 2013 DonaldD23 talk to me 14:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 12:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angrezi Mein Kehte Hain[edit]

Angrezi Mein Kehte Hain (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 fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Tagged for notability since 2020 DonaldD23 talk to me 13:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Venkanna H. Naik[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Venkanna H. Naik (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and politician-specific notability criteria. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:50, 10 October 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 14:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Nothing found in Jstor, Gscholar or Books. Sourcing used here is simply confirmation of existence, most of the article is unsourced, could be OR Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete my searching failed to identify WP:GNG compliant sourcing, appears WP:OR and we're not a WP:MEMORIAL. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Negro league baseball players (S–Z). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Young[edit]

Maurice Young (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. Also, Find a Grave is not a reliable source. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 14:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 14:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find much, it appears he only paid for 6 games in 1927. [47]. This is about all there is [48] Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Oklahoma. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found an obituary for Maurice Young, but only a few passing mentions from Monarchs boxscores in 1927, all of which simply list him as "Young" (the pitcher, not to be confused with his brother, Tom, a catcher), "M. Young" or "Morris Young". He is listed under his middle name "Doolittle" as playing for the Tulsa Black Oilers in 1929 and the Arkansas City Colored Beavers in 1934, but these are once again only passing mentions. As for his obituary's claim that he was the first Black player on the Kansas City House of David Club (not to be confused with the Cuban House of David), I haven't been able to find any articles mentioning this. I also couldn't find him in other Monarchs boxscores from years outside 1927, despite his obituary stating he played for the Monarchs in the 1930s and 1940s. Perhaps someone else may find a first name he was more commonly known by? He does have a short write-up in James A. Riley's The Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Baseball Leagues, but its only three lines and doesn't mention any other teams besides the 1927 Monarchs.Penale52 (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's disappointing that maybe 1/3 of the Negro league players articles will likely become victims of the changes that obliterated NBASE. Unfortunately, if a Negro leaguer played in 100 games, it's possible only 10 or less were even bothered to be covered by any source. Unless they were an all-star, died young or, regrettably, arrested there is negligible mention of them. This player has 12 documented games and 65 innings pitched with one of the premier Negro league teams (KC Monarchs) during their heyday (1927), and the research done by Penale above suggest there is more to Young then just the 1927 Monarchs; but combined with the contemporary racism and lack of 24/7 sports coverage, it is hard to find the necessary reliable sources. I would prefer to see some Negro league clause in NBASE allowing leniency, but I don't know how to line that up with GNG. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At worst, redirect to List of Negro league baseball players (S–Z), where he is listed ({{R from list entry}}).—Bagumba (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henry James Cambie Secondary School[edit]

Henry James Cambie Secondary 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)

WP:GNG. I couldn't find very many sources for this secondary school. I made a talk section with a few notable sources about this school here, but it isn't much. Sink Cat (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. Sink Cat (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sink Cat, While this is not an independent source, it serves as a really nice starting point. The school was known as "Richmond High" from 1928-1952. Accessing newspapers.com via the wikipedia library, it appears that there are a good many sources under both the original name and the current name there appear to be a good many sources. — Jacona (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Searching newspapers.com for "Richmond High" in Canada from 1925-1930 has turned up a plethora of sources. I'm adding some of them to the article, then if I have time will search from 1931 through the 1950s for more. Jacona (talk)

Comment: Jacona, this catchment map shows that Cambie and Richmond are 2 different schools. But there seems to be a bit of a muddle that originated in 1952, when Richmond Junior-Senior High School was relocated, and Cambrie Junior Secondary School remained in the building that formerly housed Richmond??
According to this primary source, Cambie was known as Richmond High from 1928 to 1952. From 1953 to 1995 it was Cambie Junior Secondary School, and "H. J. Cambie Secondary School" opened in its new and present location in 1995. It will be interesting to see how contemporary news sources explain the 1952 shuffle of school names and places... — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One more primary source about Richmond Secondary School. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grand'mere Eugene, Thanks. I'm going to do some other stuff. I may or may not get back here. — Jacona (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep- perJacona PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jacona's work so far, as well as articles Sink Cat and I have listed on the Talk:Henry James Cambie Secondary School page, convince me that enough independent, secondary, reliable sources exist to demonstrate notability of this subject. The history that includes Richmond Secondary School makes it a little challenging to sort out the claim that each school now makes as "the City of Richmond's first high school", but clearly both existing schools are notable. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reinstating my redacted !vote above per earlier reasoning and — Grand'mere Eugene's assistance. There are plenty of sources in the article, and they provide significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Even more are available. Care must be taken to determine when "Richmond" refers to the Cambie tree and when it refers to the Richmond Secondary School tree, but there are definitely more than enough sources to meet WP:NSCHOOL via gng. Jacona (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Fasano (musician)[edit]

Mike Fasano (musician) (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)

Redirected as AtD, reverted and here we are. Not independently notable, rock drummer. No SIGCOV in RS, no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO; WP:BANDMEMBER ("Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability."). Thanks to WP:BEFORE I now know that Mike Fasano is the Tax Collector of Pasco County, Florida. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Fasano has worked with bands such as Guns N' Roses, Stevie Nicks, Warrant, Tiger Army, and Rancid. Just because this particular Wikipedia user doesn't feel he's notable enough is not a valid reason for deletion. --Tweakofnature (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tweakofnature: I don't have a strong opinion here, but Alexandermcnabb explained their rationale very clearly and cited WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:BANDMEMBER. Please address those points and arguments rather than insinuating that Alexander is nominating this article for no reason. Sock (tock talk) 12:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very valid reason for deletion, the simple fact that there are no mentions of him in sources is further proof of that. He hasn't headlined a major concert, sold a Grammy winning album or charted in Billboard. He's a working musician with a long career, but that's not enough for notabilit here.Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No sources found, the article basically says he's a session drummer, so not likely to be notable. The lack of sourcing is proof of that. What's given in the article now isn't sufficient. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I do think the staff written article in Modern Drummer magazine is one piece of significant in-depth RS on the subject. However, it is the only the in-depth reliable source after a WP:BEFORE search. There are a number of self-published blogs with significant coverage of the subject, but for GNG purposes I wouldn't count these, and there are also profiles in publications or websites for which the subject has either worked as a writer on music or as a promoter of drum equipment. These lack independence. There are many passing mentions of the subject in a variety of publications from concert reviews in newspapers and magazines to books with coverage of recordings. The subject has recorded and performed with a wide range of notable bands. In my personal opinion, the body of work in the recording side of things is encyclopedic worthy, however, the sourcing just isn't extent at present to justify an article. Hence a "weak delete".4meter4 (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I leave the rename to editorial discretion. Star Mississippi 01:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Badr Brigade in the Jordanian Army[edit]

Badr Brigade in the Jordanian Army (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)

Stub of dubious notability; may be out of date. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - now notable thanks to Necrothesp's reference.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Devanggana Chauhan[edit]

Devanggana Chauhan (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 Not Notable subject with paid press release pieces only. Having IMDB as reference, The Print one is ANI PR, 3 Articles in SANGRI TODAY, a Non-RS. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Shah[edit]

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

Notability based on a non-rs x of y articles. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 08:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Individual has significant coverage.
Corrugateboard (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Winning a science fair and meeting the President is fine, but it's the coverage about the person we're looking for. The best there is, is a Forbes contributor piece [49], rest are PR pieces from VentureBeat. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As stated by others above, not close to WP:N. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ with no prejudice against a merge with Judaeo-Portuguese if further discussion deems that appropriate. RL0919 (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hebraization of Portuguese[edit]

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

No indication that this is a notable subject at all. Fram (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a useful article on an obscure topic and one for which references undoubtedly exist. it is worth keeping and improving. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Poat[edit]

Rudy Poat (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:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Terrible references. No coverage at all apart from single interview. UPE scope_creepTalk 09:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is WP:SECONDARY coverage, people talking to other people about the subject but who don't know the subject. That is gold standard. So in this case, no. The subject fails WP:BIO. There is zero coverage, not even enought to reach WP:THREE which by consensus is considered best practice, to prove the person notable. scope_creepTalk 09:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can find mentions confirming credits, but nothing that amounts to significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JT McCormick[edit]

AfDs for this article:
JT McCormick (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:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. References are PR. scope_creepTalk 09:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Ohio, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The coverage almost entirely consists of puff pieces and PR, no independent and secondary articles. He is the CEO of a non-notable company and I couldn't find any reviews of his book (I Got There: How I Overcame Racism, Poverty, and Abuse to Achieve the American Dream). Mooonswimmer 14:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He is no longer their CEO, there were a number of articles about him earlier this year around his fraud and embezzlements. There are also pieces about him in CNN, Bloomberg, and Forbes. It would seem that some of these articles just need more references and improvements but they have all just been flagged for deletion instead. Stravensky (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you share some of the articles covering any fraudulent activities?
    • CNN: 1, 2
    • Bloomberg: 1
    • Forbes: 1, 2, 3, 4
    No independent, secondary coverage here. These are all either passing mentions, interviews, or articles written by the subject. Mooonswimmer 16:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember reading more on the fraud somewhere. On searching now I am mostly seeing stuff from Biz Journals (not sure if that's notable enough). I can keep looking. [50]https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2023/05/30/scribe-media-shuts-down-and-lays-off-90-employees.html Stravensky (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Max fired himself from the CEO role in 2016 and named to the position JeVon McCormick, previously president of Headspring Software."
    The only mention of McCormick in the article. That is far from significant coverage. Mooonswimmer 18:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last time the article appears to have been created by a now blocked sock. Was deleted as the non-notable CEO of a company with 29 people, neither of which helps this time around. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is a somewhat puffy piece [51]... Forbes contributor piece used in the article, rest are also non-RS or PR. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guided Functional Peer Support[edit]

Guided Functional Peer Support (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)

Little indication of notability. In fact, looks like one author's pet project. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychiatry and Finland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete. Google Scholar shows very few hits, mostly bachelor's or master's theses and a book that looks to be self-published (I Sing Support For You: A Self Help Book With Music for Parents and Caregivers of Children Affected by Trauma or Toxic Stress). The more scholarly sources are very few, by a rather small group of authors and look to only mention the model in passing.
  • Kristiina Brunila; Elina Ikävalko; Tuuli Kurki; Ameera Masoud; Katariina Mertanen; Anna Mikkola; Kalle Mäkelä (2017). "Transitions, Justice, and Equity in Education in Finlandlocked". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.130. Looks to only mention the model in a footnote.
  • Kristiina Brunila; Elina Ikävalko; Tuuli Kurki; Katariina Mertanen; Anna Mikkola (2016). "Revisiting the vulnerability ethos in cross-sectoral transition policies and practices for young people in the era of marketisation of education". Research in Comparative and International Education. doi:10.1177/1745499916631060. Mentions the model, but does not define it or discuss it in detail.
  • Elina Ikävalko; Tuuli Kurki (2014). "Tutkimuksen rajoilla kuljeskellen.". In Kristiina Brunila; Ulpukka Isopahkala-Bouret (eds.). Marginaalin voima! Aikuiskasvatuksen vuosikirja 51 (in Finnish). Kansanvalistusseura & Aikuiskasvatuksen tutkimusseura. Referenced in one of the above. I don't have online access to quickly check whether this mentions the model at all, but I'll take a look whether we have physical copy in the stacks and will report back.
For non-scholarly sources, there appear to be a bunch of Google hits for various kulttuuripaja things (which, I think, are the activity related to the model), but the name is so generic (lit. 'culture workshop') I doubt we can draw any kind of equivalence or claim that all things discussing kulttuuripajas are necessarily related to the GFP model. Independent sources look to be scarce. For example this STT text is actually an non-independent press release. There's something about an award, but I cant figure out how big of a deal it is.
I'll also note that the original creator's username indicates it's a WP:ROLEACCOUNT (contrast sospedsaatio to Sosped-säätiö). That makes this all feel somewhat promotional. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a copy of Ikävalko & Kurki (2014), it appears wholly unrelated. Based on what I've seen, absent someone identifying some good independent sourcing, I'll go with delete. Ljleppan (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the award provides a shred of notability, the article goes off topic and does not talk about the subject itself. The news report barely mentions the article's subject, only doing so in a paragraph. TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 04:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Din Dong[edit]

Din Dong (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)

Little indication of notability. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be some (actually, quite a bit of) indication of WP:GNG being met, at least in Chinese press: [52][53][54][55]. The cat has been made the theme of a coastal walkway in Hong Kong [56][57], and a bus advertisement based on the character made it to the news [58][59][60]. Probably it's just that the character isn't very well known in the English world. S5A-0043Talk 12:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Also, I found two English sources, but they don't really talk about the subject in depth: [61] and [62]. TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 06:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've deorphanized the article, so it should be good to go. TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 06:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW‎ (AFD closed by User:SebastianHelm Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Juliet Mphande[edit]

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

Article’s subject has requested deletion here [63] for their safety, but also they do not appear to be notable so bringing it here. Theroadislong (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Theroadislong, you beat me to it while I was still getting up to speed on the AfD process. I agree with both your points. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 12:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, in order to see whether we should notify anyone I checked the history and found that since the first month there have been no significant changes to the article. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 13:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Way too short and easily fails WP:GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Africa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • procedural note, that there are 3 more articles and a wikidata item (and an AfD now). Person has been informed of Trust and safety team —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per all of the above. Not notable. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 13:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet GNG. Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now: since it looks like a snowball delete and the subject requested it for safety, maybe an admin should do it now instead of waiting. -Arch dude (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without further discussion, obvious GNG failure and the subject requested deletion on safety grounds. – Teratix ₵ 14:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carphologia[edit]

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

Article with no citations, the only reference is a dictionary entry (so tertiary). Medicine-related, so also fails WP:MEDRS. NicolausPrime (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roßberg (Hinterland)[edit]

Roßberg (Hinterland) (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)

Nothing much on the page to suggest this is a notable feature. I can't find much else to add. JMWt (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Germany. JMWt (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete No claim to notability and I'm not seeing any myself. Mangoe (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No claim to notability or any sources found. Nagol0929 (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not much of a hill looking at that picture. No article in the German Wikipedia.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a German article but it was deleted: de:Roßberg (Hinterland).
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. "Keep" !vote fails to address notability guidelines. ✗plicit 14:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Mohammad Ghasemian[edit]

Seyed Mohammad Ghasemian (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 - half of the sources are propaganda articles or used as propaganda, and the other half don't show significant coverage and might be presumed as non-independent - Possible paid editing. Arian (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No indication of notability. Fails to meet criteria of WP:GNG. Not enough sources to confirm intrinsic value of an article.
ContributorMix (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - probably non-notable. I ran the article's refs through machine translators that did a poor job; I note that multiple articles came back with Mr. Ghasemian's last name as "Qasemiyaan" or "Qasemian". Someone who understands Farsi may be better at finding reliable sources than I have been; please ping me if they turn up.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind my "probably non-notable" above - definitely delete since I see the nominator is a native Farsi speaker. Arian, we need good coverage of Iranian topics so I appreciate your work in this space.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is known as a director and producer on Iranian television and has directed and produced many famous programs on Iranian television. Rockman2001 (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Bright (American band) as an unopposed redirecting nomination. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bells Break Their Towers[edit]

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

Redirect to Bright (American band). Fails WP:NALBUM I can't find anything in the way of non-trivial coverage. The sources cited don't appear particularly indicative of general notability, but in any case per WP:NALBUM: Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography Polyamorph (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Polyamorph (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are currently AfDs for five albums by this band, all with recommendations to redirect. All the album articles were created in stub form early in Wikipedia history and have had very few edits or readers in the many years since, indicting low interest in improving them. You could just boldly redirect all the albums to the band regardless of the AfD process, and in the (unlikely) event that someone objects we can take it from there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Zarzis. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdessalem Kazouz Stadium[edit]

Abdessalem Kazouz Stadium (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)

Maps are not sources, and there are no sources in this article. Equalwidth (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Fortress[edit]

Eagle Fortress (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 general notability guideline. tagged for notability issues since the month the article was created. ltbdl (talk) 09:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Everland. It's a possible search term, but the article itself isn't worth saving. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I may be a bit biased as someone who does South Korean amusement park stuff, but I genuinely believe this is notable. The SIGCOV in RS is definitely there but the sources are all in Korean, thus leading to misconceptions that this is not a notable coaster. A quick search through Naver shows all this coverage: [64] [65] [66]. Plus older news sources show signs of SIGCOV as well - [67]. #prodraxis connect 13:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reasons that @Prodraxis provided. Coverage in the Korean language is easily notable. toobigtokale (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to A.D. Camacha. ✗plicit 12:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Campo Municipal da Nogueira[edit]

Campo Municipal da Nogueira (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 refs on the page for many years - seems to be a fairly small stadium for a team in the fourth level of Portuguese football. Nothing to show notability. At best could be redirected to A.D. Camacha but seems unlikely anyone would be searching for that term JMWt (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fidel de Castro[edit]

Fidel de Castro (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)

Challenged for sources since 2016. Fails WP:NACTOR. GNews Archive turns out no reliable results. GBook search shows another Filipino called Fidel de Castro but this person is a poet. --Lenticel (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chaitanya Kumar Lingamallu[edit]

Chaitanya Kumar Lingamallu (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 Entrepreneur. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Her Painted Hero[edit]

Her Painted Hero (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 refs on the page for many years. I see various mentions showing that the film exists but I can't find the kinds of RS needed to show notability for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, although IMDb Is considered not reliable, the template No Sources should not have been added as one reference exists on the page ("You should only add this template to articles that contain no citations or references of any kind.").
But most of all sources exist (and are not that hard to find), as this article (in itself a blog) mentions. See also this reliable database.(and dvd release). And significant coverage can be found in various books: this, this this, etc. Willing to add those sources and more when it is kept. Nota Bene: the film has a very notable cast and screenwriter, which contributes to its notability (please don't mention that notability is not inherited, as this is not what this sentence means). NB2- International distribution (in French as Vermicel artiste peintre).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for these sources. The blog, the database and the dvd release are not suitable for assessing notability as they're not independent reliable sources.
The first book is a paragraph mention. The second is a sentence. The third is, perhaps, long enough to be considered as a source for notability.
In my opinion that is just one source that we can use to assess notability against the GNG. JMWt (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The blog is a blog but it is quoting (and reproducing) an article of The Moving Picture World, Jan. 16. The NYT calls the film an "example of a curious movie phenomena ". A book about Sennett mentions, in a whole rather interesting paragraph dedicated to the film, something that, imho, seals the deal: "Also of interest in Her Painted Hero is a previously undocumented appearance by Harold Lloyd ", which should be added to the article, something that, again, I am willing to do when I have more time. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Lots of coverage in period newspapers. [69] for example, in the Photoplay column, the review is the third in the list. Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This one is also more extensive, fourth column from the left, third item down, near the middle. [70]. This one talks about Hale Hamilton, a local boy! [71]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oaktree. Sources exist and the article can be expanded. An early film is of general and historic notability. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The film was written by Mack Sennett for his Keystone Studios. I added a source and some info. This film is part of a 50-movie pack : Comedy Classics DVD collection issued by Universal Studios in 2007.— Maile (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the reliable sources identified by Oaktree b as well as the book sources, so that together there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to nominator:@JMWt: Looks like a SnowBall. Would you consider withdrawing this nomination so that we can speedy-keep the page? Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No. None of the provided refs pass the bar of "substantial" in my opinion. Others may well decide that I'm wrong, but I don't withdraw. JMWt (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well-sourced.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean Basketball Association[edit]

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

Event was proposed but never materialised. No reliable, independent sourcing or sustained impact meriting coverage; orphaned article. lizthegrey (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It was an idea that was debated, picked up by independent papers that wrote long articles, sufficing the WP:GNG. Thus, if it almost happened and last minute was canceled, I'd support a keep. Since the debate was very early on, not. I think that, while the GNG is met, this article gets into the general sphere of WP:NOT. Also, cool that it was considered, yet a Lebanese team playing games with Israel, how realistic nowadays is that? gidonb (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Bonner Allen[edit]

Elizabeth Bonner Allen (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 unable to de-orphan. Created by a single-purpose account. Sources seem weak and mostly about her projects and nothing about her. Parts of her bio seem lifted straight from imdb. She did win a Royal Television Society Award though. Other than that I'd say it barely scratches WP:ANYBIO Ϫ 06:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Some more reviews: Inside John Lewis in The Times[72] (paywalled); Silverville in Guardian[73]; Parking Mad: Guardian[74] (the last doesn't mention her except in credits). Espresso Addict (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ as not meeting WP:NLIST. The discussion established that there are places in the US that have 'palace' in their names or are referred to as 'palace', but also that there does not appear to be coverage of them as a class in reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of palaces in the United States[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST; no sourcing that speaks of the topic as a class across the United States. The only material that satisfies NLIST is for Hawai'i, but the material is simply a duplicate of List of Hawaiian royal residences. Material for the article was cut and pasted from List of palaces. Also, appears to be original research as incorporates places named as palaces, which are not actually palaces (eg Cliff Palace) or cannot justifiably be called palances (eg Biltmore Estate) other than to denote a site of extreme wealth. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and United States of America. Goldsztajn (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a problem with this. I added some sourced details to the ones in Texas, since I know something about those, and where to find the sourcing. A lot of Wikipedia is a "copy and paste" of itself. Compared to some of the other similar palace lists, such as those on Category:Lists of palaces by country, this one's not too bad. A lot the others are just lists with maybe a few words as a list intro. At least this editor took the initiative to give a little blurb of explanation beside each one. — Maile (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'll also go through the Hawaii ones and source them, also. I've done a fair amount of time on Hawaii articles. It was, after all, a kingdom before we overthrew the monarchy. I think a lot in the overall US listings could be beefed up and sourced, if anyone wanted to take the time. — Maile (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also would agree that this list needs to be cleaned up, as much in here are not palaces. Something that is an official resident of a head of government, does not make it a palace. i.e. the D.C. residences of the President and the Vice President. — Maile (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is larger than clean-up, I would not have sent the article here if that was the case. I prodded this following its creation, but since that was removed no sourcing has been added to satisfy WP:NLIST. My own WP:BEFORE found no reliable sourcing that references the class, other than the already mentioned examples of Hawai'i. Without sources discussing the class, adding individual references does not satisfy the problem that the list is syth/original research. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevertheless, I'm in going to continue to do some clean-up. Others can do as they wish on this. — Maile (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article for Palace starts with A palace is a grand residence, often serving as a royal residence or the home for a head of state or some other high-ranking dignitary, such as a bishop or archbishop. The White House thus counts. I reverted your removal of it. Dream Focus 11:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted your revert of my removing the US President's home (the White House) and the Vice President's house as palaces. It has to have been officially named (and sourced as such) a palace or castle, for Wikipedia to list it as a castle. These are official government residences, and were never designated palaces or castles. Wikipedia does not reinvent categories or designated names for official government sites. These were never designated as palaces. — Maile (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/the-grounds/the-white-house/ At various times in history, the White House has been known as the “President’s Palace,”
    Also the definition of palace includes "home for the head of a state". Dream Focus 12:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Clarityfiend's overall cleanup and comments below. — Maile (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However that would work out. But I think merging the two would be an ideal solution, retaining the best of both. — Maile (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, one way or another, getting this topic correct and straightened out for Wikipedia purposes, will be a challenge. Americans tend to dance to their own tunes as to how these things get named. For instance:
— Maile (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, there's more...Bobby's Burger Palace, The Palace of Auburn Hills, Corn Palace (I love Cow Palace!) ... but this is the whole point, this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, simply having "palace" in the name cannot justify a list article. I disagree that this is solely a problem of US English, the problem is that the US, other than Hawai'i, does not have a collection of buildings that satisfy the understanding of palace as the residence of the head of state (traditionally a monarch). Lots of English speaking countries have "devalued" the meaning of palace, but we can still order articles around theme of buildings that are residences of monarchs/heads of state, we just cannot do that for the US. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although the article seems to have some flaws, they can be fixed, deleting the article won’t fix these issues. The list seems to be a really useful list for people searching for palaces in the USA. User:V.B.Speranza (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NLIST. Lists of castles are plentiful out there, but not palaces. There is already a List of Hawaiian royal residences, which accounts for most of the entries on this list. Cliff Palace is most definitely not a palace; it's just a fanciful name for a cliff dwelling. The rest of the entries, along with the Hawaiian list, could go in the castle list's See also section. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the objections seem to be of the "bah humbug!", and "this is outlandish!" variety. I view the weirdness of palaces/castles in the US as a feature, not a bug, of this list. Note also that there are many (over 150) "List of castles in foo" and 27 "List of palaces in foo", showing that the topic is legit. Abductive (reasoning) 17:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The problem is not one of personal taste; there's policy and guideline problems. First, conflating castles, palaces and opulent estates (or even ordinary dwellings!) is a problem of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Second, I have no problem finding reliable sourcing to satisfy *as a class* the topic of palaces in Germany, or France or Italy (or Hawai'i)...but there's no sourcing to satisfy that topic for the United States, so the list fails WP:NLIST and is both WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Americans don't distinguish between palaces and castles properly. As an example, Hearst Castle is a complex of palatial buildings. So, the sourcing may say palace where it means castle and vice versa. Here are some sources: The 19 must-see castles in America (Timeout), The 40 Most Beautiful Castles You Can Visit in the United States (House Beautiful), 22 Gorgeous U.S. Castles That Are Fit for a Fairy Tale (Travel + Leisure). So, the article could be renamed (incorrectly), or it could be improved, but it cannot be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 05:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A palace is a unique building and a list of palaces in a country can be an interesting and useful source of information for Wikipedia users. It doesn't violate any Wikipedia guidelines that I know of. Truthanado (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets our WP:LISTN guide. Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to provide further opportunity for development of evidence that this subject meets WP:NLIST.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 01:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I see No consensus right now. I just want to be sure that any problems that exist can't be resolved through clean-up, setting an inclusion guidelines or a page title change or a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep- It is a notable topic, meets WP:NLIST, sources exist & can be expanded. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a notable topic, one for which sources undoubtedly exist, an an article that can be expanded. It also appears to me that "keep" has been the clear consensus for weeks now. Why drag it out? Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bookworm857158367 - WP:MUSTBESOURCES - unforutnately no contributor to the discussion has yet cited a reliable source that speaks to the specific subject of this article ("Palaces") as a class, which is necessary to satisfy WP:NLIST. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t have the time or inclination to hunt down references for an articlevI’m not an expert on but I also don’t think it deserves to be deleted. People here are too darned quick to delete interesting articles instead of improving them. This is a thing. A perfunctory Google search turns up: https://www.housebeautiful.com/lifestyle/g15957174/best-castles-united-states/
    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/six-castles-you-can-visit-united-states-180974323/ The keep vote stays. Close and keep. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaving aside the conflation of castles with mansions, castles themselves are *not* palaces, unless one intends to ignore WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SALAT. The problem is the lay use of the term "palace" to connote "palatial", signifying excessive or immense. Structures representative of this in the United States are already covered in the lists mentioned above. This article duplicates material already in existence here and remains SYNTH. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve never been a fan of rigid, bureaucratic adherence to policies if they result in indiscriminate deletion of articles that can and should be improved upon instead of deleted. I said I'm not an expert but the fact that a couple of magazine articles are at the top of a 10 second Google search certainly suggests that there are additional sources and that it is a topic of interest. Articles for deletion is not the place for cleanup, anyway. Improve instead of delete. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This is a shared name grouping: the Hawai'ian examples are the only ones which a naive reader would imagine qualify. It really tends to collapse into "colonial governor's palaces, Hawai'ian royalty, and some other things", which is hardly the mark of a well-formed grouping, and it comes across as the sort of thing that shows up in your Facebook feed ("Number four will surprise you!"). Mangoe (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still see no sourcing which overcomes the problems with SYNTH inherent in the list, however, given lay perceptions of the term, as an ATD one possibility might be a redirect to List of largest houses in the United States. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no evidence that any sources have considered this group as a group, meaning this fails NLIST. Those asserting that it passes above have not provided any substantive argument as to why this is the case; no sources have been put forward that I can see. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vanamonde: I can't find any reliable sources discussing "palaces in the USA" as a topic, and I can't see any compelling argument in this discussion about why this passes LISTN Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There simply isn't the sourcing here to define "Palaces in the United States" as a class that could meet NLIST ("a list topic is considered notable ... if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"). Also, the vast majority of the article is redundant to the Hawai'i article; the ragbag of random other entries doesn't a new article make. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom for unclear inclusion criteria and lack of sources. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 17:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've been sitting on this one for a while, but reviewing it again, a "palace" simply isn't a well-enough-defined thing to list like this. The residences of Hawaiian royalty, which already has an article, certainly fit the traditional definition, but a large ancient dwelling being called a "cliff palace" doesn't actually make it one; governors' mansions simply aren't the same even if they use this term. Moreover, the listed governors' residences in New Mexico, Texas, and Virginia are listed at List of governors' residences in the United States, and those in NC, PR, and GU could be added there as well. Reywas92Talk 19:14, 3 November 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! 07:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Chang[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Roger Chang (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)

Blogger/podcaster fails WP:GNG; has no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Rift (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Prysner[edit]

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

subject does not meet the threshold of notability; secondary sources generally only quote him as a bystander or participant in a protest he attended, or are published by liberationnews.org which is the newsletter of Party for Socialism and Liberation, which he is closely associated with. for what its worth, the article for the org itself was nominated for deletion which ended deadlocked.

some may note that the article has been nominated before. to save you some time:

  • the closing admin himself was banned several years later for sockpuppetry

i believe the status of the closing admin does not imply the subject of this article suddenly meets the threshold.

isadora of ibiza (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, California, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found two more RS more specifically about Prysner, but not closely related to him, "'Beyond 140': Iraq war vet Michael Prysner on the Fort Hood shooting" Al Jazeera and "Activists’ anti-war fight continues" Beverly Press. I added these to the article. I think they help us get to a minimum threshold of notability for a "keep".Nowa (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per evidence provided by Nowa.--User:Namiba 21:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i would like to re-anchor this discussion in the biographical notability guidelines. since the vast majority of this individual’s news coverage centers around his political activities, we should apply WP:NPOL, which i’ll inline here: (emphasis added)
    The following are presumed to be notable:
    Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.
    Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
    Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.
    the closest this person has come to gaining any sort of ratification for his ideas is his failed write-in campaign for Florida's 22nd congressional district.
    of course, WP:NPOL is not the only way a subject can meet the notability threshold; he could still meet the WP:GNG. but i will note that, per the GNG: significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article.
    in my opinion, the two articles Nowa has provided are examples of news outlets interviewing a proponent of a WP:FRINGE viewpoint in order to provide coverage of the viewpoint. the fringe viewpoint itself might be notable, but examples of individual proponents are not necessarily notable in their own right. moreover, the political organization he leads, March Forward!, does not currently have an article, which should be a clue that even the viewpoint he espouses may not meet the threshold of notability. wikipedia is not an indiscriminate index of political dissidents.
    isadora of ibiza (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prysner is primarily known as an activist, not a politician. Regardless, WP:GNG is the primary guideline and the sources presented demonstrate that the subject passes WP:GNG.--User:Namiba 22:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rellisting. The article subject doesn't claim to be a politician but an activist so WP:NPOL is being misapplied by the nominator. And I have closed a lot of AFDs and never considered the standing of the admin who closed a previous discussion years ago to affect a discussion today. But the relisting is just to hopefully get some more participation here. What is important is not what you may think of the article subject but what reliable sources exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. PSL was nominated for deletion 16 years ago and is very easily notable now. Prysner is a well known anti-war activist, his non-notable political career is secondary to the status he has in opposition to American imperialism. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 00:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to 2006 Ontario municipal elections. Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Norfolk County municipal election[edit]

2006 Norfolk County municipal election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable local election in a municipality with under 100k people. Since the previous AfD in 2006, our notability standards around this sort of topic have gotten much stricter. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Do we actually have a policy with a 100k cut off? If so, there are quite a few articles that should be deleted. But I think, the true measure of notability is reliable sources, which this article still needs. If we do end up deleting the article, I vote to merge the information with 2006 Ontario municipal elections.-- Earl Andrew - talk 11:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with all of what Earl Andrew has noted here. Could certainly use more sources (which I'd be more than happy to try and find) but, if the move is to delete, it should be merged with the 2006 Ontario municipal elections page. HamOntPoliFiend (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The admissibility of an article about a municipal election hinges less on the population of the municipality per se, and more on the depth and quality of the sourcing that can or cannot be provided to support the article with. It is, of course, far likelier that large cities will have the necessary level of sourcing than it is that small towns will, but it ultimately hinges more on the sourcing than the population per se. (There are, for instance, cities over 100K in 2006 Ontario municipal elections which do not have standalone articles linked separately from the results tabled in the main article.) We can, of course, hold onto the mayoral numbers in the parent article, but I don't see a lot of value in keeping all the ward councillor races there if no other place in the "Municipalities with 25,000 to 100,000 people" section (which is where Norfolk would go) has any ward councillor races recorded there. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's just a chart with numbers, over and over. There is no critical discussion of the candidates, nor any indication why this election was more significant than others. We don't need a running tally for every municipal election in Ontario. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole municipality only has (as of today) around 65 000 residents. This is not a major part of the province (not an economic centre, not a large tourist area), it just exists... This isn't Toronto or Ottawa. It's a fraction of the province that lives here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have deprodded 2000 Norfolk County municipal election, 2003 Norfolk County municipal election and 2010 Norfolk County municipal election. I propose that the scope of this discussion be broadened to include these other similar articles. ~Kvng (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Local municipal elections are not not notable per se. But, as Bearcat describes, we want to see how or why the election was notable, and it is more likely that a municipality with a larger population size would show the national or international coverage that elevates the election above other elections (as this project is not a database of election results). In theory, a US president's first campaign for a municipal office might retrospectively become notable, or a former prime minister losing an election for a local office might make the election more notable than most (see the fictional case of Welcome to Mooseport). --Enos733 (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see consensus. It's not a good sign though when those advocating Keep say that there need to be better sources. What thoughts are there about the proposed Merger? And, no, after 5 days of an open AFD, it's too late to add additional articles to the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a possible Merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to 2006 Ontario municipal elections. Oppose Kvng's proposal to expand scope of the AfD to include other elections. Unlike virtually any other future event, local elections can rise to WP:GNG with zero predictability. I feel that we need to make case-by-case determinations on whether a particular election's sourcing reach WP:NEVENT thresholds (specifically WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LFO scandal[edit]

LFO scandal (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)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Don't forget BEFORE.C.3 and WP:ATD-T. Thanks to Piotrus for tagging it now. —siroχo 18:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yoko Matsugane[edit]

Yoko Matsugane (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)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Fashion, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A7 and G11 speedy deletion. No claim to notability and this article is very promotional. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Speedy, but still Delete: IMO this would not qualify for A7 as "has appeared on several TV shows" is a credible claim to significance, because if it turned out those roles were significant and that this could be sourced, notability would be established. However, a review of the Japanese article (via google translate), which has a list of the roles, reveals that none of them were in fact significant, so I would say that this should still be deleted for lack of notability. In regards to the G11, I don't feel that the article is unambiguously promotional as it does have a mostly encyclopedic tone. Bensci54 (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close‎. Appears to be accidental duplication of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of India, Moscow (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of India, Moscow[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Embassy of India, Moscow (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 fails GNG. Efforts to redirect this have failed. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 07:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

José Velásquez (cyclist)[edit]

José Velásquez (cyclist) (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:NPF as it has a lack of information. Aydoh8 (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The subject does not meet WP:N. Even searching for sources is tough with none found, only a few databases. Paulpat99 (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎ per WP:SKCRIT#1. No policy-based reason for deletion was advanced. – Joe (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pheia pyrama[edit]

Pheia pyrama (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)

Very little information available about the species online. Aydoh8 (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Early close under the snowball close. – Joe (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Marciniak[edit]

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

Article does not meet notability guidelines and is not sourced. There is also not a lot of reliable information available online. Aydoh8 (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons given above. Mccapra (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Szare Szeregi is very important WW2 organisation, so is its commander.
Marcelus (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A WP:BEFORE check would have turned up multiple references and the much longer articles on other Wikipedias. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps those of you who know more about this topic that I do, could actually add the sources. Then this discussion can be closed. Bduke (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

A very inadequate deletion rationale by the nominator. But the only opinion focusing on sources and notability is for Delete. Also a note to article promoter that threatening legal action against an editor or the Wikipedia organization will result in an indefinite block so do not do this again. It was also not appropriate to remove the AFD tag. Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Party of British Columbia (2023)[edit]

Freedom Party of British Columbia (2023) (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)

Political party has not run any candidates in an election yet, very sparse sourcing Dan Carkner (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There were attempts to recreate the page of a former party with the same name to be "about" the new party, with the username of the editor matching the founder of the new party. After it was rolled back a user eventually created this new page with minimal sourcing; I cannot say if this creator is affiliated, but the party has not yet run candidates or received substantial coverage in the press. Dan Carkner (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elections BC show many parties. FYI - a party does not have the have a candidate in order to be a party. They merely have to go through all of the steps required by Elections BC to have an official party. So the claim that the party needs to have a candidate is erroneous and without merit. Hunzana97 (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC) — Hunzana97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's Notability guidelines, that is what is relevant here, not electoral laws. See: Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria Dan Carkner (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing to take down a perfectly good page for what can only be seen as political reasons. The NEW party is using a name that was used before. So what? It breaks no copyright laws. It is perfectly acceptable. On what basis would one object to this page? It is good information. And, wiki or not, it not only won't stop the party from having a public website, but erroneous efforts to deplatform the party will only amplify the need for such a party. Hunzana97 (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC) — Hunzana97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Again, please go read what they've asked you to. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This party is NEW party. Please check with Elections BC. The old party did not copyright the name, and did not trademark it either. The new party carries a similar name, but is a completely different party. Why would anyone even be concerned that this party page exists? Hunzana97 (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no sourcing that talks about it. Registering a party is as simple as getting names on a list and paying the fee. You'll need way more than that to get an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'll want a full article in the Vancouver newspapers for example before we can consider keeping an article about the group. Lack of sourcing is the issue, not any sort of bias about the group's ideas (on which I have strong opinions, but won't comment as it's not relevant). Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are saying that if the mainstream media wants to suppress an idea or concept, then simply NOT REPORTING on it will do? If that is the case, then sad for Wikipedia, because it would have the effect of diminishing the site's credibility. This is not something I'd think the developers of Wikipedia would favor. Hunzana97 (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC) — Hunzana97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Or it's not important enough to talk about in the first place? I didn't develop wikipedia and weren't here for karma points. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable party that recently organized protests against gender identities in Canadian schools. A total of six hits in Gnews, one of which is Rebel News, very biased sourced (akin to OAN in the USA). A brief mention of the party being founded here [75], but it's all about the wave of gender politics protests seen in Canada lately. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a wiki article could be seen as PROMO for the time being, as they attempt to legitimize their beliefs here (not unlike what has been seen in the US recently). Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Their beliefs are already legitimized. Grooming children is a violation of the Criminal Code of Canada and not yet been addressed in court. That is coming. The party has no issues with alternative lifestyles. It's none of anyone's business. But children are fundamentally off limits across multiple racial lines, over and above the criminal code violations. Hunzana97 (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC) — Hunzana97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Good thing none of that happens then. Please keep it with a world view, this is an international platform. If you aren't here to discuss the sourcing behind the article, we can't take you seriously in this discussion. Perhaps go read the suggested links above, then keep the rest to yourself. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This has also proven helpful [76] to others in the past. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus that this article fails WP:NTRAINSTATION which is a notability guidelines so I'm closing this as Delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2779 km[edit]

2779 km (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As the article says, a train station, not a settlement, even if it has a population. The Russian text is no more illuminating: of the four sources, three of them are either the census or derivations of it, and the fourth is "the most complete and accurate database of RCOAD codes and numbers of the Federal Tax Service Inspectorate of Russia" (acto the Bing translation). The station (a pair of platforms) is there, and a short ways off is what looks like a farm with a pair of house which could account for the census numbers. I'm having a hard time seeing this as a notable place. Mangoe (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's bordering on a WP:TNT argument given that what's there is nothing at all like what station stop articles look like. I don't consider station stops notable per se though I would object to a redirect to the line/service in question, assuming it exists and has a listing of stops. Mangoe (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We have a guideline for train-stations, it's WP:NTRAINSTATION, which this obviously fails. People should not attempt to do an end-run around it by pointing out that it is a lowest-denomination unit on the Russian census, equivalent to a census-tract, as census-tracts are excluded from giving a GEOLAND pass. The place this is the station for (and is part of) is Kukharevo, but whilst there is an article for that on Russian Wiki, we don't have one in English. Therefore there is no target to merge to. Redirecting a random length in kilometres to a random village/district in Russia does not make sense. FOARP (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Whilst there is an article for that on Russian Wiki, we don't have one in English" - would be a reason to wait. And it isn't a random length, it's the name of the place. Peter James (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      We don't keep non-notable articles around just because they might be redirected to something that might be written in the future. And yes, if you're searching "2779 km", then what you're searching for is a length in kilometres.
      • And this is the only thing with that name (and has been included in a list since 2018, so there is already a suitable redirect target). Other similar titles 10,000 km and 1378 km are also unambiguous. It's notable according to one guideline; if it is decided that there should not be a separate article, a redirect can have {{R printworthy}}, categorisation and interwiki linking. Has there been a discussion where it was decided these are "equivalent to a census-tract"? Peter James (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "Rural localities" are not necessarily inhabited - they are just locations, so your statement below is rather missing the point: there is nothing to be written about this place other than that it exists. FOARP (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet the notability standard for train stations. –dlthewave ☎ 04:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have never taken populated places as notable simply for having a population and a name. Mangoe (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it's not even a physical station building, it's basically a dot on a map, perhaps marked by a signpost. Desolate, barren area with no historical importance, it appears. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NTRAINSTATION. Folly Mox (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. Editors interested in changing the article's title can discuss a page move on the article talk page or just be BOLD. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courthouse in Września[edit]

Courthouse in Września (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)

Deprodded recently (prod by User:Lectonar, deprod by User:Djflem). I've started an AfD on pl wiki (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2023:10:24:Gmach sądu we Wrześni). My BEFORE does not suggest this effectively unreferenced building (our article links to a photo, pl links to the Couthouse page) is notable or has a status of a heritage monument (note: it is next to a prison building that has such a status, but that building does not yet have an article on pl or en, so no merger is possible). While it is good to monitor the pl wiki discussion for possible keep arguments, I think we should discuss things here as well. (A note for clarity: pl wiki article is about the building, not the court; our article is a substub that doesn't even make its focus clear, but I don't think local courts at that level are inherently notable, either. FYI the building hosts a local district court (Poland) office). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Early close under the snowball clause. – Joe (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Porter Flats Apartments[edit]

Porter Flats Apartments (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:NBUILD as not much information available online (this is all I could find with a Google search). The notability criterion states "Buildings...require significant in-depth courage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability". Aydoh8 (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, United States of America, and Montana. Aydoh8 (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's listed on the National Register of Historic Places, therefore notable. Jfire (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clicking on the NRHP number in the infobox, will bring up the historical study that was done for the building. Long and rather extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here, giving a 100 plus year history of the building. [77] Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Oaktree b already mentioned, the nomination form for the building has both an in-depth history and a list of references at the end. The reason buildings on the NRHP are considered notable is that the National Park Service requires that information in order to list a property, and their standards are higher than GNG. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 16:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The National Register of Historic Places is a part of Wikipedia's projects. This includes listings on the state-county-city levels. Many of them are stubs. What matters with NRHP is that we get a sourced article on them - even if it's just a sentence or two to start the article. — Maile (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Ground Crew Project. Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Federation (ufology)[edit]

Galactic Federation (ufology) (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)

Speculative (to put it charitably) article on a supposed alliance of Milky Way civilizations. All three cited references are to different sources reporting on the same interview with an Israeli UFO crackpot. Utterly non-notable and a glaring violation of WP:FRINGE. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The article creator was piggybacking on Galactic Confederacy/Scientology notability/fame, but it's the wrong name and the article really has nothing to do with the Scientology GC story. What is left sounds like recent UFO conspiracy theory stuff, but not even enough of that to write about. Speculative content.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge - as NASA explained, the claims are false, but the news coverage of the claims might be worth inclusion at Ground Crew Project, or at least a redirect there --DannyS712 (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to the Ground Crew Project per Danny. The article doesn't make a good case for stand-alone notability for now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I would be disappointed if the article were removed. Personally, I think it is a nice and interesting article. Therefore, I would indeed also merge it with Ground Crew Project, if the article were not allowed to exist on its own. S. Perquin 💬 – 09:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems reasonable to merge to Ground Crew Project. Hyperbolick (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge, nothing to add to all of the above, Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of fictional galactic communities and once done include a line in the intro there about it being a claim or speculation in ufology, as yet unproven. It would be an undeserved honor imo to redirect or merge with Ground Crew Project. The original idea (apart from 1951's The Day the Earth Stood Still) is much earlier attributed to a different UFO group. From encyclopedia.com: QUOTE: "Unarius was established in 1954 by Ernest and Ruth Norman; its central emphasis is on channeled information from extraterrestrial beings, especially about reincarnation, and the spiritual entry of Earth into the Galactic Federation, which occurred on September 14, 1973." In my opinion it's WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone "Galactic Federation (ufology)" article until more references can be produced to move it out of fiction. The two-word term Galactic Federation goes to a disambiguation page. 5Q5|✉
I added this sourced line to the List of fictional galactic communities: "In ufology and some New Age religions there are claims and speculations of the existence of a Galactic Federation, but no evidence has ever been presented to prove its existence beyond an imaginary concept." If there is ever more notability, a stand-alone article could be republished. 5Q5|✉ 12:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Scicluna[edit]

Dylan Scicluna (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 Notability. Nath1991 (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles W. Goodier[edit]

Charles W. Goodier (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)

Mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist and pass WP:NPOL. Just because he was a mayor does not mean that he deserves an article. Just an average mayor of a small village in New York state. FatCat96 (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. FatCat96 (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If they satisfy WP:NPOL they are presumed notable and may have an article. In this case, I would say the subject does not satisfy WP:NPOL. However, that in itself gives no indication into their lack of notability. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not satisfying WP:NPOL does indicate that they are not presumed to be notable (lack of a presumption, not the same as a presumption that they are not notable) but I was unable to find significant coverage outside of the Buffalo News obituary, fails WP:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Mid-century small town mayor, I can't find coverage about him. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG, being the mayor of a town with a population of roughly 3,000 (at the time of his term) certainly doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Haunted PS1 games. Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mummy Sandbox[edit]

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

I couldn't find any significant coverage on my own for this game. For the sources used in the article, the Dread XP review looks good, but the PC Gamer piece only mentions the game and the Indie Games Plus piece (archived) is a very short announcement. QuietCicada (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Song-gi[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Ávila (footballer)[edit]

Jonathan Ávila (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)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I'm closing this discussion as Keep as even those arguing for Deletion acknowledge that the articles follow Wikipedia policy on Lists. WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT are editor essays and do not have the support of being a policy or guideline. The question seems to rest on whether or not an editor sees these articles as providing value to the project which is a subjective opinion on which well-intentioned editors can disagree. Without providing evidence that these two articles are a violation of content guidelines, I find Keep to be the default decision. There is a good case for a Merge but that option is contested and is only offered by one editor. But the possibility of merging some of this information on articles on individual films can occur on article talk pages. My only opinion on this is that I hope that the sources located in this discussion be added to the articles. Unfortunately this doesn't happen with most AFDs I review but hope springs eternal and I'd like to encourage those editors advocating Keep to take this next step in improving the articles. Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mission: Impossible film locations[edit]

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

Indiscriminate, trivial, non-notable, and poorly sourced listcruft and fancruft. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom – A google does brings up lists of locations for both films, so they both meet WP:LISTN in a cursory sense. However, most of the sources are essentially tourist guides for location hunters, so fail to meet WP:SIGCOV IMO. There is very little of encyclopedic value in these lists. We are essentially providing a tourist guide/trivia. Betty Logan (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Betty Logan above says it meets NLIST, which says: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". It has. Some sources are in the page, other obviously exist:
  1. https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/mission-impossible-filming-locations or https://www.gqmagazine.fr/article/lieux-tournage-mission-impossible
  2. https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/the-filming-locations-of-mission-impossible-dead-reckoning-part-one/
  3. https://www.guidelondon.org.uk/blog/around-london/mission-impossible-london-locations/ (technically a blog but made by professionals)
  4. https://thelatch.com.au/mission-impossible-filming-locations/
Etc.
Those articles vary in scope, quality and approach but the list has been discussed as a group by multiple independent reliable sources. The list allows to organise the entries, and add comments and explanations that are needed, and to source them properly. Keep JB filming locations for the same reasons. (Even more sources exist ([78][79], [80], [81], [82][83][84][85] [86]etc.). If readers want to use this for touristic purpose, is that bad?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:NLIST as above commenters noted, the filming locations of these films are notable. Fulfills WP:LISTPURP as an informational list. While some of the prose can be improved to avoid switching back and for between in-universe and real world voice, I will also note that WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not seem to be violated given the context and references provided. —siroχo 19:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources giving significant coverage have been found. Dream Focus 20:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Arguably meeting general notability "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page". The sources given and that turn up do not discuss the group in any in-depth or encyclopedic manner, so I am not convinced it actually meets notability, which requires non-trivial coverage. The James Bond list has zero citations, by the way. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello TenTonParasol. The article may have zero citations, but cites have been brought forward in this discussion which meet the criteria for keeping a page at AfD (even if the cites are not yet attached to the article itself). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I should've clarified that the no cites comment was more of a "someone should get on that" thought. I'm still not convinced by the quality of sources brought here and maintain "just bc it barely meets notability does not necessarily warrant a standalone article". Listicles without real commentary or in-depth analysis are not considered good sources for other subjects like characters and video games and indie films, so I don't see why they count here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • NLIST language encompasses the two articles, and should apply to the subjects you mention as well: "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." Randy Kryn (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated, I don't feel enough if the coverage presented is non-trivial enough. A source simply listing the locations without any further commentary does not satisfy my interpretation of significant coverage and what remains isn't enough for me to believe a standalone is warranted. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 05:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments, both now easily meet WP:NLIST and the Heymann Standard. I'll also extend my post to include the text of my only essay, Shadow of Keep. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Editors should remember that just because a topic has received some coverage from some sources does not mean it is automatically notable enough for a standalone article. ~10 sources are not enough to meet the WP:GNG criterion of attracting significant, sustained coverage. If editors strongly feel this is a noteworthy topic, it would be more advisable if the articles were reduced into small sections on the main franchise articles, in which case I would suggest a "merge" !vote instead of outright "keep". But I still don't think this content should be kept in any form, because it is inherently WP:FANCRUFT that only interests a particular audience. This is Wikipedia, not Fandom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ten sources are quite enough to pass the GNG in any circumstances! Also they get new coverage for the newer films, different locations for them to talk about. Dream Focus 21:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Every article only interests a particular audience. Please consider that Mission Impossible fans, James Bond fans, film fans, and location fans make up a pretty large "particular audience". An audience large enough to bypass the linked essay about fancruft (whatever that is, almost all of the pages Wikipedia editors label fancruft seem pretty much like encyclopedic topics to me). As for the other link, it's to a template. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:NOPAGE. For once, there's actually some marginally reasonable appeals to NLIST here. However, the information about filming locations is something that can and generally should be covered at the individual film articles (and in prose, not in a list). There's absolutely nothing to be gained by collating all of this into yet another list. It's low-quality duplication of loosely-related material. Just because these films happen to be in the same franchise, there's nothing particularly enlightening about carving out one specific aspect of their production and putting it all in a combo list/article. I could probably just as easily source "List of plots of Mission: Impossible films" based on a quick search, but again, that's information that should be at the individual articles, not duplicated in a separate list. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggestion Mission: Impossible (film series) as a target or something else? —siroχo 04:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather, I meant to merge information about each specific film to the article on that specific film, not to the article on the whole franchise. Assuming, of course, that it's not already there...the first one I checked (the first film) didn't seem to have filming location info, so I just figured there'd potentially be at least something to merge in total. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though I consider these lists trivia, I find them preferable to just dumping listcruft into the film articles themselves. As you can see at Thunderball_(film)#Filming, these articles already include location information where it is relevant, and when there is something encyclopedic to say about it. I don't think just dumping a list of filming locations into the article would improve it; in fact, I think it would be detrimental. In appreciate you are advocating for it in prose form, but that is not really how merges work. If we are going to keep this trivia, then I suppose listcruft articles are the appropriate place to store listcruft. Betty Logan (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOPAGE. This type of list is inappropriate, the location info can be easily covered in each individual film article's production section, not necessary to fork it into its own page. --Mika1h (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable standalone list topic per the sources provided by Mushy Yank. I first considered advocating for a merge to Mission: Impossible (film series), but the sources are good in listing locations that feature in the films. However, the existing content needs to be sourced, and we should probably have specific inclusion criteria, like being part of one of the lists or a source focusing especially on a location (as opposed to something reported offhand). We will always have redundancy on Wikipedia, it's simply that the scope will vary. Like a film series article will repeat a lot of cast and crew from each film's article, but it won't list all of them. This list shouldn't list all locations, just the ones that have received notice. In addition to the sources mentioned, I saw Time Out, Lifestyle Asia, The Standard, GQ India, Uproxx. The film series is a pretty unique one in terms of its so-called globe-trotting, so if the sources are there, I'm fine with this kind of scope. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_October_24

Leave a Reply