Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< October 24 October 26 >

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. Daniel (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Kumar (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, lack of in-depth coverage in independent RS. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. Most of the sources are about his company Lalitha Jewellery. The majority of the available sources primarily focus on the subject's company, Lalitha Jewellery. Akshithmanya talk 15:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above user CNMa1141 deleted a reliable news source of The New Indian Express and removed an important point of 110 Billion from the page. Thats not an appropriate edit Anbupaithal (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely appropriate when the reference fails WP:NEWSORGINDIA and is more about the company than the subject of the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Hans India article, Sakshi article, Times of India Samayam Telugu article, DT Next article all covers his life story. Moreover he is the chairman of a well known jewellery chain in South India with around 50 outlets and around 110 Billion turnover. Anbupaithal (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with CNMall41 statement Worldiswide (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The Hans, Sakshi, Samayam Telugu and DT Next references are all interviews, and therefore WP:PRIMARY sources. Nearly all of the reliable secondary sources I can find on him are about the company, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The one exception is some brief allegations of him being linked to a 2020 legal matter of Dilip Chhabria [1], [2], but in all that doesn't amount to SIGCOV. Wikishovel (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More content and references has been added. new references with significant coverage about he becoming viral in social media, he as brand ambassador of Lalitha Jewellery on TV Ads etc added. His dialogue Dabbulu Evariki Oorike Raavu went very popular through out Andhra Pradesh. Also his philanthrophy has been added. Everything with significant coverage from news articles from TV9 Telugu, ABP News, Sakshi etc has been added. Also his connection with actress Savitri Ganesan is also added. Definetly passes WP:GNG Anbupaithal (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:Per nominator and Wikishovel. Fails GNG. The claim that his dialogue Dabbulu Evariki Oorike Raavu went very popular through out Andhra Pradesh and he becoming viral in social media are not valid for notability. Nothing useful hit in a google search. We would have a million articles in wikipedia if we are to include everyone who becomes viral. 42.104.155.220 (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Added controversy section with significant coverage and added extra secondary news sources as well Anbupaithal (talk) 02:01, 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! 23:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Weak Keep- The article is well sourced thanks to @Anbupaithal, but it not in good condition & would require a rewrite. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
also seems like a WP:Walled Garden PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's a minister with the same name that resigned. Coverage of this person is just interviews and confirmation of life events (got married, gave money to charity) and business activities (is in television commercials), without really saying why this individual is notable. Vague sort of PROMO for a local businessman. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep-: There is good local coverage.--AAonlyA (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some of these sources, as stated above, are interviews, which are primary and non-independent. Additionally, some sources don't even mention the subject, but rather the company or business itself, which fails significant coverage of the subject. (And same goes for passing mentions.) So really, I can't find any sources that are reliable, independent, and has significant coverage of the subject. And no, TV9 Telugu isn't a reliable source. Tails Wx 02:28, 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 00:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Bhandari[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rahul Bhandari (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)

Being an Indian Administrative Service officer is just a government job and doesn't automatically confer notability as per WP:SNG. Also, the individual clearly does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Charlie (talk) 18:02, 4 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) 18:47, 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! 23:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there is absolutely no assertion of any kind of significant notability in this article - as the nominator said, this is a normal government job. This is the third nomination of the same article so I'd suggest SALTing also. None of the sources are both independent and have significant coverage. Daniel (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Graduated third in his class, then got a functionary job, is his claim to notability? I can't find any sources from the last 12 years since the last AfD that make this individual more notable now. SALT is required. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This could be about the person [3] but I don't think it helps notability; the name is too common to be able to find much. Oaktree b (talk) 00:20, 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. Daniel (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Roetzheim[edit]

William Roetzheim (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)

Roetzheim is a former entrepreneur who had some success with a company called Marotz about 20 years ago. He received a profile in Inc. in 2012, but nothing much since then. He appears to have retired from entrepreneurship to try his hand at writing, for which he founded his own publishing company (Level 4 Press) to publish. This article contains a large collection of unverified and unverifiable facts (including the fact that Roetzheim created an AI program for the US Navy prior to 1983, a dubious fact at best), and a long list of relatively meaningless awards (also unverified and unverifiable, and mostly for his Marotz company). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. Roetzheim is the CEO of a company called Level 4 Press. See their website at www.Level4press.com. Acastlerichard (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the creator of this article (MaryFrancisK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has been blocked as part of a large sockfarm whose purpose appeared to be to create promotional Wikipedia articles. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I hate to say anything positive about this kind of promotional... stuff.. but according to Ebsco search there's a review of one of his plays (Of genius and human frailty. Review By: Lowerison, Jean. Gay & Lesbian Times. 7/30/2009, Issue 1127, p42-43) as well as a short review of his edited series of poetry CDs (The Giant Book of Poetry. By: Eckenrode, Dawn, Library Journal, 03630277, 5/15/2006, Vol. 131, Issue 9). There's a laudatory profile in Business Source Complete (A POET, THOUGH YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW IT.Periodical By: BUCHANAN, LEIGH. Inc.. Sep2012, Vol. 34 Issue 7, p192-193. 2p. , Database: Business Source Complete) though it reads as if it were paid content. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think a single review of his play adds significantly to his notability, nor does the Inc. profile (especially if, as noted, it turns out to be paid content). There is a further note in Library Journal that his Big Book of Poems won an award as "Best Audio Book - Fiction" in 2008, but this award was granted by USABookNews.com, which now redirects to AmericanBookFest.com. This site claims to have been awarding best book awards for over 20 years, so one might presume that they have continued from USABookNews.com. This site also notes that entrants to their awards categories must pay an entry fee, so the value of these awards must be questioned. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Paying an entry fee is normal (in the UK at least) for all but the largest literary awards, which are backed by a big donor. I didn't do an exhaustive search for reviews, just looked at hits in Proquest/Ebsco; there may well be more in newspapers. There were also loads of hits in Ebsco that appeared to relate to his business interests but I don't work in that area so did not evaluate them. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:22, 13 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! 23:23, 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! 23:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American naval flight officers ride in the back seat; they don't fly the plane.
    • "While in the Navy, Roetzheim taught himself artificial intelligence programming."
This claim is a howler. Roetzheim left the Navy in 1983. Was he using an Apple IIe or an early IBM PC?
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @A. B.: I don't know that these statements are as implausible as you claim. The article does not claim that Roetzheim piloted the S3-A's, just that he flew them. I would interpret that to mean that he served as the NFO on the S3-A's, and as part of the plane's crew, saying that he flew the aircraft is a legitimate use of the word. Also, as the Timeline of artificial intelligence article points out, machine learning algorithms were already being developed in the 1970s, so the claim that Roetzheim was engaged in whatever passed for AI in the early 80s is, again, at least plausible. However, neither of these statements is sourced, nor is either particularly a sign of notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete er WP:NOTRESUME. In 2023, after 2 decades of Wiipedia, to argue otherwise is untenable. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Volvexzshawa[edit]

Volvexzshawa (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:NMUSICIAN. References are puff pieces or PR and there is no significant coverage I can find in a Google search. CNMall41 (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The person Volvexzshawa is notable according to my research upon publication by Kenya National News [4]https://www.the-star.co.ke/sasa/word-is/2023-01-09-why-musitwa-took-a-break-from-rap-industry/ thus prove to be publy on Wikipedia data too. Teresia Akinyi Achilo (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" according to reliable sources published on Newspaper about the topic Disagree with the further nomination of the page Volvexzshawa with reason of deletion "conflict of interest" because of adding image of the Musician from my own work by mistake and request for review on the matter because the page Volvexzshawa is a notable person and do believe should be on Wikipedia data and the discussion closed .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresia Akinyi Achilo (talk • contribs) 26 October 2023 (UTC)

As already explained on your talk page by at least two editors, the discussion for deletion is not related to conflict of interest. That is a secondary issues. The discussion involves the subject not meeting notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article's main claim to notability appears to be winning the Afrimma award in 2018, but I can find no confirmation that this happened, not even at the news article about that ceremony: [5]. All other media mentions of this singer are the usual hype that we've seen for hundreds of African musicians here, in which his managers plaster PR and gossip sites with promotional blurbs about how amazing he is, while nobody in the reliable media has ever noticed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Musician stands out to be independent and notable with Wikipedia guidelines.Thank you Teresia Akinyi Achilo (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL. Badly fails NBAND - no evidence of touring, no major TV/radio interviews, no international recording contracts. Nigeria is a country of over 60 million folks, 2,450 of whom are princes and 945,386 are DJs. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign State of Good Hope[edit]

Sovereign State of Good Hope (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:NGEO as well as WP:GNG.  Lefcentreright  Discuss  20:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, page is disconnected from reality—blindlynx 23:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • When sources like this article in The South African outright refute the sources given in this article, pointing out that one person claims this and none of it is true, it is not Wikipedia's place to perpetuate this untruth (complete with a whole infobox full of fiction, such as, just for starters, unverifiable demographic information that could not have been collected by a nonexistent country). This is not merely unverifiable, but verifiably false. Uncle G (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-recognized country sourced to an article that basically refutes it, I can't see the need to have an article, the notability just isn't there. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 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. Daniel (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius III[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as he is a self-proclaimed and unrecognized king by the South African government.  Lefcentreright  Discuss  20:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom—blindlynx 23:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I pointed out, Sovereign State of Good Hope (AfD discussion) is not merely unverifiable, but verifiably false and does not belong in any form in Wikipedia for being outright untrue. As such, it is not an appropriate merger target in any way. None of its content nor edit history belongs here. The same holds true here. The only apparently independent source that supports this turns out to be authored by the article subject, as can be seen from both its byline and the contributor information for the photographs, and even has a disclaimer at the bottom that such content is the author's own and not that of South Africa Today. This is some shameful Wikipedia editing. The source provided in the very first revision even stated outright that this was one person declaring xyrself to be a king, and not being recognized as such by anyone else. Yet the article as written claimed the contrary, supposedly supported by that source. This blatant misrepresentation of sources is highly inappropriate, and the use of autobiographical sources from the only person making the claims is as wrongheaded as it has always been. Uncle G (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If there was more coverage, we could have a case for an interesting pseudo-king. This is just about one article, he went and told the person in charge they were evicted. Odd mix of PROMO or one event notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Re CMD's question: the Brill book seems to be based on this dissertation. To be fair to our overlord Cornelius, it's not just one article: there is a little coverage of his 2018 eviction stunt – Citizen, Citizen, SABC – and then some of a 2019 court case – Argus, Dispatch, Sunday Times – and he's mentioned in the Cape Times in 2015 so may be known to Khoisan communities (I don't know). I could really go either way on whether these establish notability or whether they're just human-interest stories. But we can all agree he does not have a state, just a ragtag separatist movement, so if kept the article should be rewritten. Jlalbion (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable "ruler" of a non-notable fake kingdom. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:33, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Maliner (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basehor-Linwood High School[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NORG. Article and BEFORE showed no independent reliable sources with significant coverage addressing the subject directly and in-depth. Routine local news mentions, database records, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS.  // Timothy :: talk  21:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Kansas. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I need to look longer at this, but initial searches show it mentioned in 11 research papers, multiple books (although initial thoughts are these are mostly directories) and many newspaper articles (but per nom, these could be routine). There's a lot of reading to do. But I will just make a point now that this page was only created today. Yes, it was not exactly created in a good state, but couldn't something have been put on the talk page in the first instance? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A quick look at newspapers.com finds that Basehor-Linwood High School was the result of a merger of Basehor High School and Linwood High School in approximately 1966. Newspapers.com shows approximately 3700 results for Basehor High School, dating back to at least 1930. It shows about 2500 for Linwood High School (limited to Kansas), also dating back to 1930. If shows approximately 1700 articles for Basehor-Linwood High School. It would be very surprising if these nearly 8,000 newspaper articles didn't provide sufficient coverage to establish notability. Jacona (talk)
According to this non-reliable source, Basehor High School has roots back to 1885 under the name Prairie Gardens, so we're talking about nearly a century and a half of history to peruse. Jacona (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After wading through a small portion of the material available on newspapers.com, it is readily apparent that there is significant coverage in WP:RS which WP:NEXISTs to meet WP:GNG. I've added a very small portion of this to the article. There are currently 13 references. Many more are available. The difficulty is that there are so many references to wade through to find the ones that are useful. In 150 years, there are probably a lot more sources offline than there are online. These count, but they are hard to find. Jacona (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Jacona, and WP:HEY as the article is already in much improved state and passes WP:GNG. There is a lot to wade through, but there clearly are multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of strong, non-transactional sources. Easy meet on GNG. Thanks to Jacona for the HEY, and I think a withdraw from TimothyBlue would be very appropriate. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HEY. Great job. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 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. The consensus is that the sources provided in the article and this debate do not meet the standard required by WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. Daniel (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Cecily[edit]

Poor Cecily (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:NFILM: unnotable porn with mostly unknown cast and no reviews that I can find. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a porn film. This blog can confirm it. Mubi or AV Club also have a page [6] if you want to verify its genre precisely. But that's not the most important. There is significant coverage in various reliable books, including:
  1. Sexy Heroine ; Erotic Heroines in Movies - p. 42
  2. Cinema Sewer: The Adults Only #Guide to History's Sickest nd Sexiest Movies! · Volume 1 ....p. 79
  3. La Revue du cinéma- p. 345 (attesting, incidentally, distribution in French as Soumise et perverse Cécilie and yet another alt title as The Erotic Adventures of Poor Cecily.)
  4. Sade et le cinéma - p. 137
Also mentioned in:
  1. Dad Made Dirty Movies (not centered on the film)
  2. History of censorship of the film in Australia (to have an overview of its versions with different durations)
Keep .Thank you.
Note: I am willing to add those sources to the page and improve/expand it once it is kept.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sourcing found. So it's a non-porn adult film? So R rated?. Delete as no sources found regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While this may look reliable, it is again a Wordpress blog (after scrolling the bottom it says Powered by WordPress) with limited editorial oversight excepting allowing readers to look for errors, which can be emailed. However, the fact-checking and editorial process is not provided, and there is no staff page whatsoever, so this Wordpress blog still a SPS. The MUBI entry is just a database entry and not a full SIGCOV-meeting article. Of the remaining references, all only appear to have one or two mentions while searching for the English name (i.e., Poor Cecily) or some minor variation. For one of the books, I can access mention the full page, and it clearly is a non-SIGCOV passing mention. However, two others are in a foreign language and partially paywalled. These are likely non-SIGCOV but I can not fully analyse these, so am neutral for now, but am curious if anyone can access the books via The Wikipedia Library (which seems unlikely). Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails WP:NFILM and GNG. Sources in article and above are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing with subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing but database/directory style listings with brief mentions. Nothing that meets SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  01:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article has 8 sources and passes WP:NOTABILITY. I see nothing wrong with this article at all. Geko72290 (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of these sources are RS that meet GNG. Worthless vote as pure assertion. Delete due to lack of proper sourcing as above. Spartaz Humbug! 05:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spartaz What do you mean lack of proper sourcing? The article literally has 8 sourced websites on it. I'm not changing my vote. Geko72290 (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Merely being sourced doesn't mean that the sources are SIGCOV, reliable, or independent. VickKiang (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete was unable to locate trustworthy coverage. The reliability of the sources mentioned in the article is, at best, questionable, and in some cases, blatantly unreliable. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The weight given to all the arguments here hinges on the two french (?) sources, which haven't been evaluated in depth. More discussion of these specifically would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 18 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, Daniel (talk) 20:19, 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. Daniel (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Korine[edit]

Rachel Korine (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 actress. Most articles that mention her are discussions about the films she has been in, or a single sentence saying that she is Harmony Korine's wife. I found one interview with her but that does not establish notability. Putting this up for editors to discuss or bring more evidence for notability forward. LovelyLillith (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I agree with Duffbeerforme. She passes WP:NACTOR with some significant roles in multiple notable films.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has prominent roles in notable productions as per WP:NACTOR as confirmed in reliable sources in the article such as this here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 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! 06:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Plain[edit]

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

The article in question focuses on the founder of a relatively unknown company. It was authored by a blocked user, and only two out of the five sources used are considered unreliable. Unfortunately, the article lacks the required in-depth coverage from reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as outlined in the General Notability Guideline Akshithmanya talk 15:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Was once prodded and then de-prodded due to malformed, which may or may not make it eligible for soft deletion; relisting just to be safe.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The NZ Herald is the only reliable source there is. Rest I find are tabloids, so nothing for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:28, 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. Daniel (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Yankivtsi[edit]

Battle of Yankivtsi (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)

Such a battle has never happened, we are dealing with another WP:OR by @Forward.ops. On that day, there was a UPA crime against the Polish population in this village, during which 51 people were murdered. This is mentioned in Polish sources ([7]), as well as in the Ukrainian Wikipedia: Атака на Янківці [uk]. Please note the wording used: Атака - attack and Злочин - crime.

I do not propose a move because there is nothing to salvage. Lots of false information: about the command of General Komorowski (who was in Warsaw at the time), about 100,000 Ukrainians in "Polish concentration camps", etc. Marcelus (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:GNG and possible WP:HOAX. The fact that the background is substantially bigger than the supposed event speaks of trying to pump up the page. Mztourist (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. The page has been moved to Jankowce Massacre and totally rewritten. It probably makes sense to undo both and let this AFD play out but I wanted to hear from other people before I did so (and no objections to anyone deciding to do it). The new page seems somewhat more backed but isn't adequately sourced at this time. Skynxnex (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a mess in need of WP:TNTing (and whoever replaced one bad article with another gets a WP:TROUT). The new article is a poorly referenced stub. The old article was little better - it had more references, but 80% of this was a mostly off-topci rant. The old article had only a single RS for the fact that the battle existed ([8]); it has been tagged as 'failed verification' and I concur - I accessed the article and it does not mention Yankivtsi or Jankowice. In addition to this being deleted, admin action may be needed due to possible falsificaiton of sources per Mztourist. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As WP:HOAX. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete short after the article was created I attempted, with my admitted language limitations, to find any sort of sourcing to verify most of the claims and failed. That seems to be backed up by other editors since then and the creator hasn't really been forthcoming with explaining their sources. New version has different but still delete-able problems. Any (if any) recreation of this topic should ideally be from an experienced editor or through AFC. Skynxnex (talk) 01:24, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Maliner (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Maginley[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources exist such as [9] but its not enough for WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:16, 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 Procedural Close‎. This Was a Draft Before being put In AFD, it should Be Listed In an WP:MFD (non-admin closure) PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Savannah Speedway[edit]

Draft:Savannah Speedway (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Savannah Speedway|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 AriTheHorse 18:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page is not notable, can't find any independent sources on it. AriTheHorse 18:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 25. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 18:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A procedural close would appear to be warranted here at the very least — this was draftified before coming to AfD, but was not moved back to article space (MfD handles the rare cases where a deletion discussion is warranted for a draft). That said, the nominator is also the creator, and all other editors of the page have been formatting and/or tagging (and the aforementioned drafticiation), so it is possible that this might be a G7 speedy deletion candidate as well. In any case, AfD would appear to be the wrong venue as it currently stands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this article is in the draftspace a procedural close makes sense as this should be listed at MfD. Beyond that I have no opinion as of yet. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:53, 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 no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus here in this discussion and there are enough comments at this point about journals and notabiity that I don't think further relistings will clarify the divided opinion. I realize that this closure might be challenged again at DRV but I think that could happen with any possible closure decision (Keep, Delete, Redirect or Merge). Editors advocating a Merge or Redirect can continue this discussion on the article talk page but I think it is time to bring this discussion to a close. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications[edit]

IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications (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 journal is notable on its own; I could not find sufficient secondary sources that discuss it directly to establish notability under WP:GNG. The previous redirect would be a good WP:ATD. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Computing. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand the [WP:GNG] correctly, then I need to show significance from reliable sources, that are independent of the subject. In the sciences Scopus is considered a reliable source of journal rankings that can show the significance of the journal. Here is the CG&A page - would that be ok? There is a Google Scholar page of rankings for computer graphics journals and CG&A is ranked 6th. To show significant coverage, the metrics on those pages show that the journal attracts authors and that the articles they publish are also frequently cited. Would it help to add these citations to prevent deletion of the page? Pisenberg (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Pisenberg. The problem with those is that they do not provide significant coverage of the journal. What exactly constitutes significant coverage is a bit ambiguous, but it requires at least some prose (not just data points) and at least some analysis (from the guideline: "so that no original research is needed to extract the content"). Database entries like the ones provided here do not typically contribute to establishing notability under WP:GNG.
    As a small side note, it's not necessary to include sources in an article to establish notability through them. From WP:NEXIST: Notability requires only the existence of suitable [...] sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. So you don't need to worry about that aspect here. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 20:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that this is a scientific peer-reviewed magazine. A magazine's notability is proofed by citations and journal rankings. You can think of a scientific citation as a way in which scientific publications talk about the content in other publications. It's relatively rare to find externals sources such as newspaper articles or books that talk about a scientific magazine as an entity - they will take about individual pieces of content via citations. The fact that CG&A is highly ranked in computer graphics and has a high number of citations means that people read the magazine and write about its content - and as such that it is notable in the scientific community. Pisenberg (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from citations I can also find university pages that announced proudly about their faculty receiving awards from cg&a (here or here ) Pisenberg (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close.Keep. A major publication in the area. The article was created a couple hours ago. As a first step, you have to place the "Notability" tag on the page, to give the creator chance to find more sources. No wonder you didnt find sources: google search is littered by irrelevant hits, and only an expert, who knowns where to look can find good sources. - Altenmann >talk

Newly created articles are checked for notability as part of WP:NPP. The creator stopped editing this page more than 6 hours ago, and I don't think the argument that it might be difficult to locate hypothetical sources actually does much to establish notability. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is not about notability, but about giving people a leeway in editing. "6 hours ago" is poor argument: we all have a real life, you know. Therefore in my times it was polite to give a full day for a response. Not all editors are experts in our notability guideline, so you should give them a slack if it is not an outright nonsense or shameless promo. Personally I didnt find it notable, therefore I created this page as a redirect a long time ago. - Altenmann >talk 18:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean, but there is plenty of time to discuss the issue at AfD; after all, that's what it's for. Nominating at AfD, at least to me, just means to create a space for a focussed discussion regarding deletion. It does not pass a final judgement on notability. Regarding notifying the creator, I do admit that that's an oversight on my part; the Page Curation script automatically notifies the original creator, in this case you. I should have notified the editor who expanded it from a redirect, thanks for taking care of that yourself. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 18:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Heck, you even didnt bother to notify the page author about this discussion. A nice boot welcome to a newcomer. - Altenmann >talk 18:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That the artcile was only recently created is of no importance, so a speedy close for that reason is out of the question. The AfD will run for 7 days, providing ample time to improve the article, if possible (which it is, see below). It might have been better to create it as a draft, but that's moot now. In any case, MIAR reports that this journal (not a magazine) is indexed in a number of important, selective databases (Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, and MEDLINE), so this is a clear meet of WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Randykitty NJOURNALS is an essay, it doesn‘t have the broad consensus behind it that supports notability guidelines; the journal needs to meet GNG, and entries in selective databases are not GNG sources. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 22:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:1Q. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sure NJournals is an essay, but I cite it because it explains clearly why I think this journal is notable. The indexing in three important, selective databases (Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, and MEDLINE) means that 3 different commissions of specialists have evaluated this journal and found it to be among the best in its field. There's a fourth commission involved, because this is also indexed in the highly-selective MEDLINE subset, Index Medicus. To me, that's enough to be included in WP. And if someone doesn't find this reasoning compelling enough, I appeal to WP:IAR: the encyclopedia definitely would be poorer if we start deleting journal articles like this one. --Randykitty (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, this is my first Wikipedia edit. Next time I will create a draft. Thank you for helping to make the page better! Pisenberg (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a kind of topic that I expect to find when I open an encyclopedia, it's distinct enough from related topics to warrant a page of its own, and we have the information to write about it. Nor is it a fringe journal; there is no risk of giving a pseudoscientific/crankish publication more respectability than it deserves. XOR'easter (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This meets the standard of "something I have heard of outside Wikipedia", so I'd like to argue for keeping it, but of course that's not actually a Wikipedia notability standard. It would be helpful if we could at least get enough depth of sourcing to clarify whether this is a trade magazine, a peer-reviewed journal, one or the other at different times in its history, or something of both. I can find books calling it a technical journal [16], "a technical journal that almost comes into the magazine category" [17], or a monthly magazine [18] but without much detail that would help explain those labels. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It describes itself as a magazine, but the rest of the description (a "mix of opinion pieces and peer-reviewed research articles") sounds like Science or Nature, both of which we call "journals", not magazines. --Randykitty (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "something of both" is also an accurate description of those: they have large amounts of editorial rather than peer-reviewed-research content (like a magazine not a journal), they are filled with ads (like a magazine not a journal), but they also have a big section of peer-reviewed research content that subscribers tend not to read (like a journal not a magazine). I would view the fact that our articles don't describe this more clearly as a bug, not as something to be emulated. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IEEE publishes both Transactions and Magazines. IEEE has a useful page where they define what they mean by the latter: https://magazines.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/get-started-with-ieee-magazines/about-ieee-magazines/. CG&A is about 2/3 peer-reviewed papers and 1/3 departments papers which are accepted after editor-review by department editors who are experts in their respective fields. The only ads in CG&A are conference announcements and calls for papers placed by IEEE. IEEE presently has 44 magazines (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IEEE_publications), and CG&A founded in 1981 is tied for fourth oldest, see https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/browse/periodicals/title. Twenty of these (21 if CG&A gets approved) have their own Wikipedia pages. MikePotel (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, for reasons I've stated above. MikePotel (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi User:MikePotel, welcome to Wikipedia.
    First, if you have a potential conflict of interest with this article topic (such as being a current or former editor for the publication), you should review the conflict-of-interest policy. Generally, that means declaring that you have a conflict of interest in this discussion or on your talk page. (User:Pisenberg, you may find reviewing WP:COI useful as well; based on your talk page declaration, you definitely have a COI for this topic.) Further, while WP:COI does not explicitly require a user with a COI from voting in a related AFD discussion like this one, I would definitely recommend abstaining. (Participation in the discussion as in your comment above is fine, and in fact encouraged!)
    Second, you wrote "for reasons I've stated above", but it's not actually clear to me what reasons you're referring to. Would you mind clarifying? I think you might mean either (a) that CG&A is old compared to other IEEE magazines or (b) that IEEE is majority peer-reviewed. Suriname0 (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was unaware of the rules. I only meant to reply to the questions about what is an IEEE magazine, how much peer-review, etc. and tried to limit myself to factual data and references you might find useful. I added the vote to "Keep" the page as an afterthought, my bad. I think both reasons I gave are valid as is the fact that many similar pages have been approved, but I leave that up to all of you. MikePotel (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, I changed my vote to a comment. Pisenberg (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep long-established journal, in the top half of its kind, easily passes WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And with doi:10.17723/aarc.56.3.yq85664055727271 "The IEEE's Computer Graphics and Applications magazine is published bi-monthly by the IEEE Computer Society. It focuses on imaging, computer modeling, and complex computer graphics. Recently the magazine has focused heavily on medical imaging. As archivists begin to confront the issues involved with managing and preserving multimedia records they will find this magazine especially useful for understanding both the technology and the ways it is used." as well as Solomon's "This popular publication... " this is a clear pass of GNG too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are the sources for that? Even if you claim that the two sentences you quote meet WP:SIGCOV (and I would argue that they don't), multiple sources are required - and unless you are somehow claiming that the even briefer "http://computer.org/cga is the home of IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, a bimonthly magazine that covers a variety of topics catering to both computer graphics practitioners and researchers. This popular publications bridges the theory and practice of computer graphics, from specific algorithms to full system implementations", which is included in a list of dozens of websites, counts towards GNG? BilledMammal (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just gave it. I don't care that you disagree. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: Per WP:TALK#REPLIED, please don't edit your comments after others have replied to them, as you did here; it can deprive replies of the context in which they are made and can mislead other editors. BilledMammal (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this does not appear to meet the GNG, which, unlike NJOURNALS, is an actual guideline. Passing mentions are not sufficient to establish notability for any other topics, and thus do not merit an article just because some editors consider "journals" to be inherently encyclopedic.
JoelleJay (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If consensus is not to keep this article, should be redirected to List of IEEE publications as an WP:ATD. I'll take a look at whether this article meets WP:GNG myself to vote later. Suriname0 (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi everyone, this is my first Wikipedia page creation and I am learning a lot from this conversation here. Thank you all. I now checked the WP:NJOURNALS which matches my intuitive understanding of notability for research journals (which CG&A falls under, given it's primarily peer-reviewed content). The page cites 3 criteria and says "The most typical way of satisfying C1 is to show that the journal is included in selective citation indices" (we now have this content on the page) the page also mentions that having an h-index counts (which is in the infobox), C2 is satisfied because CG&A is a listed in many bibliographic databases and indexing services like The National Library of Medicine, Scopus. Google Scholar. If two criteria are satisfied the journal should be considered notable. Pisenberg (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi User:Pisenberg, as others have said, welcome to Wikipedia. I want to take a second to provide a little more context for you about why this article is (unintentionally!) controversial. WP:NJOURNALS is an essay: "The purpose of an essay is to aid or comment on the encyclopedia but not on any unrelated causes. Essays have no official status and do not speak for the Wikipedia community because they may be created and edited without overall community oversight." In other words, essays try to fill out ambiguities and alternative perspectives on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In the case of most article deletion discussions (and as is the case here), the most relevant guideline for determining if a topic should have a stand-alone Wikipedia article is Wikipedia:Notability. In particular, WP:GNG (as mentioned by the nominator, JoelleJay, and myself above) tells us that "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." That helps us understand the claims made in the WP:NJOURNALS essay, which articulates a series of criteria that it argues comprise significant coverage. But, the essay is very controversial! Many editors disagree that the criteria in this essay are reasonable (which is why it is an essay and not a guideline). See this recent contentious discussion on the essay's talk page.
    In the case of this page, you've stumbled precisely into the most controversial case: an article that seems not to meet WP:GNG (a guideline), but does meet the criteria in WP:NJOURNALS (an essay). Arguments for keeping include (a) that the article does meet WP:GNG after all (such as via the criteria in WP:NJOURNALS) or (b) that having this stand-alone article improves the encyclopedia, so we should ignore all rules and keep this article despite the fact that it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Perhaps obviously, both of these types of arguments are controversial (because ultimately it means holding articles like this to a lower or different standard than other articles). Hope this is useful context! Suriname0 (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Suriname0. This explanation is very helpful. Pisenberg (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AFD was closed on 21 October 2023. I've unclosed and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 21.—S Marshall T/C 18:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous close is located here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The journal is longstanding, has an impact factor, is listed in multiple selective indexing services, is among the top journals in its area and is published by a reputable organisation. I consider the inclusion in selective indexing services and the impact factor to meet GNG in this specialised case. The information is useful to readers, especially in terms of verifying the reliability of other articles whose references were published in this journal. I see no reason why removing this information benefits the encyclopedia or its readers. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. People here are arguing as if this is a referendum on NJOURNALS again (should journal indexes alone be enough for notability) but that doesn't need to be the beginning or end of the discussion. This article provides reliably sourced (if not independently sourced) information bringing it well above stub class, such as the table of editors in chief. That doesn't contribute to GNG notability, and I'm unconvinced that its indexing is enough by itself despite WP:NJOURNALS, but I do think that the indexing is contributory to notability. Beyond that I think the published books with descriptions of this journal/magazine, although generally brief, also contribute. We need to apply common sense and factor out two different purposes of GNG: (1) Is this significant enough to have an article? For this, independence of sourcing is necessary but the indexing and book sources all contribute. (2) Do we have enough reliably-sourced material to get a real article out of the sources? For this, reliable but non-independent sources can be used. We do have multiple sources for (1): Not just the indexes, but also books including Lewell's A-Z Guide to Computer Graphics (1985): "Computer Graphics and Applications is a monthly journal that almost comes into the magazine category ..."; several books by David Salomon including Curves and Surfaces for Computer Graphics (2007) "Computer Graphics and Applications is a technical journal carrying research papers and news ..."; "Status Report on the User Interface Magazine" (1991), doi:10.1145/122488.1048032, reporting some behind-the-scenes financing of this journal as background for the status of a different journal; a note here about the first hologram magazine cover; etc. I think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Updating my opinion after additional expansion and additional sourcing (especially a full paragraph about this journal in the new Ruller reference, and an entire published article in an unrelated magazine about the 1988 hologram cover) has made the pass of WP:GNG clearer to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I continue to be on the fence. I think the original close was correct from a policy perspective; any Keep argument I made would have to be WP:ILIKEIT. I identified additional sources beyond those David Eppstein mentioned on the talk page a few days ago: Talk:IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications#Potential sources. However, I think the article falls short of WP:GNG. Suriname0 (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For any new contributors to this discussion, the original close was: "I have no objection to some content being merged over but we can't override notability requirements based on an essay that hasn't got wide community acceptance." Suriname0 (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to distract down a procedural rathole, but I don't really agree with this presentation of policy. There are reasons other than ILIKEIT to !vote keep here. SnowFire (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I don't see a reason to vote keep other than ILIKEIT, which is what my comment said. Other keep arguments presented here are unconvincing to me. Suriname0 (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I say this as someone who is a fan of applying GNG very broadly, and thinking certain subject-specific notability guidelines were wildly overinclusive (e.g. the old NSPORTS one). However... while they're not that deep, sources do exist. And if there's ever an exception to GNG where a broader inclusion criteria is merited, it's precisely formal academia-esque stuff where the chances of getting gull'd by bored high schoolers or people promoting their business is very low. WP:NPROF is more inclusive than GNG partially to avoid getting razzed for a "Donna Strickland doesn't have an article" and journals are a close kin, so I'm fine with something like NJOURNALS being broader than GNG. This particular topic isn't a paper-mill journal or a completely minor journal, so seems fine to me. SnowFire (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NJOURNALS is an essay, one that its supporters consistently refuse to try to get promoted to a guideline, which speaks volumes about the level of support it has among the broader community. Without an SNG we default back to WP:GNG, and this article clearly fails that criteria - to keep this article would be a clear WP:LOCALCONSENSUS violation. BilledMammal (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a personal favor to me, could you perhaps explain how the encyclopedia benefits from deleting this (and all other similarly-sourced academic/scientific journal articles)? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      First, scientific journals are not much different from other publications like popular magazines, where the publisher may wish to take advantage of Wikipedia to promote their product. Abuse of this sort is why we have actually had to go beyond GNG for such products and create WP:NCORP; going below GNG invites such abuse.
      While the class this journal is in - not predatory, published by a significant non-profit organization - makes such a situation unlikely to apply, we don't make exceptions for organizations that we think are good generally, and we shouldn't make such exceptions here. Further, you did ask for all other similarly-sourced academic/scientific journal articles.
      Second, this article isn't far off from a database; it provides a somewhat explanatory lede, referenced almost entirely to primary sources, and then provides a raw-data list of the editors and the bibliographic databases it is abstracted and indexed in. This is not an encyclopedic article, and based on the sources available never can be; it belongs in Wikidata, not Wikipedia.
      However, this discussion doesn't really belong here; it belongs on an RfC proposing to promote NJOURNAL to a guideline - I would strongly encourage you to open one so that we can permanently resolve this question one way or the other. BilledMammal (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      A regular point of confusion that I have around deletion discussions of academic journals is that this debate is really about whether to host this content in a stand-alone article. In this case, the current paragraph of text in the article (ignoring the list of prior editors and the list of databases that index it) is perfectly verifiable and seems WP:DUE to include essentially unaltered in List of IEEE publications (a notable list). So it doesn't seem like we're debating deletion of the content (which will still be on Wikipedia), but rather whether that content should be hosted in a stand-alone article versus in a list. Suriname0 (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      What a bizarre claim. List of IEEE publications contains no text about any of these publications; it includes only the titles of the publications. What leads you to suggest that the detailed content of this article would be welcome in its entirety there? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry for my lack of clarity! I'm saying that the best version of List of IEEE publications includes short descriptions after each of the listed publications. If another editor removed a descriptive summary of a source from List of IEEE publications on UNDUE grounds, I would revert them! If this discussion is closed as redirect, I would personally merge the stub info listed at the article into the list (shifting from bullet points to sub-headers). (And I suspect we could profitably write short summaries for several of the red-linked magazines as well.) Suriname0 (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you should have a look at that list, because it sounds like you haven't seen it. It contains 138 journals, 44 magazines, and 1 "other", for a total of 183 publications. Now imagine what that page is going to look like if we would merge articles into this. Given that a "short summary" should include essential info like scope, IF, editor-in-chief, frequency, year of establishment, and probably more, each with its references, that would make for quite a list. And now think of applying this "solution" to larger publishers like Wiley or Elsevier... --Randykitty (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect does not pass the GNG. There is no consensus to use NJOURNALS as a SNG, no matter how much its proponents would like to LOCALCONSENSUS their way into making fetch a thing. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:VAGUEWAVE. This is a forum to discuss this specific journal and its sourcing, not to rehash stale battles about the sacred writ of our holy texts. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    e journal has not received coverage by independent secondary sources. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    False. You may reasonably disagree about what depth of coverage is appropriate, but claiming that the sources do not exist at all is so blatantly incorrect that it makes it appear you have not even looked at the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of IEEE publications: fails WP:GNG. Ruller 1993's coverage is 3 4 sentences long. Saloman 2011's coverage is 2 sentences long. Neither are WP:SIGCOV. I don't see anything else that is. The editors who are voting to keep, who appealed the earlier closure, and who voted to overturn and relist this, are all wasting a huge amount of editor time. Shame on you all, come up with an independent source longer than 3 4 sentences, get our guidelines changed, or let it go. Levivich (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice you didn't even mention the two-page magazine article entirely about the 1988 cover image. Cherry-picking much? Another newly added reference, Chen, Paul, & O'Keefe, is also almost entirely about the content of this journal (as a test case for the citation analysis proposed by the authors). Also, learn to count. Ruller is four sentences long, but one of those sentences is quite long (as long as the other three put together). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, Ruller 1993 is 4 sentences, not 3. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the overall length of the coverage (even if one of the sentences is quite long), and so it doesn't change my opinion about Ruller 1993 not providing SIGCOV.

    I can't access the 1989 Holosphere article, but based on your description of it, what it's cited for in the Wikipedia article, and a Google snippet, it appears to be an article about a hologram called "The Tin Toy" that appeared on the cover of IEEE CG&A, but not about CG&A itself. If the Holosphere article has SIGCOV -- like more than 4 sentences (however long) or one paragraph -- about CG&A itself (and not the hologram on the cover), maybe you can paste some excerpts here and we can take a look at it. If it's SIGCOV about CG&A, it would count towards GNG and we'd be halfway there.

    Chen 2000, a conference paper published by IEEE, is probably not an independent source and so not GNG, but also doesn't have SIGCOV, as all it seems to say about CG&A is IEEE CG&A was launched in 1981 ... IEEE CG&A as a prestigious journal reflects significant aspects of computer graphics. Of course, it is not the only journal in the field. There are a vast amount of publications in the literature on this subject. and the rest is about a dataset of IEEE CG&A articles the author used to create an author co-citation map as an example of domain visualization (if I understood the paper correctly, which I probably didn't). Levivich (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "a conference paper published by IEEE"
    The IEEE is an organization with a membership that's near a half million engineers in pretty much every country in the world. It is literally the most respected engineering society in the world. If you want to exclude IEEE papers from consideration, you're literally nixing 5 million publications, covering over nearly anywhere from a quarter to half the engineering papers in the world, from those that would be most qualified to write about these things in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankfully that's not really an issue, since those 5 million IEEE publications don't usually spend any time writing about each other, so they're unlikely to be GNG sources for each other. But if editors can count 2 sentences as SIGCOV, I don't see why you can't count a conference paper presented at the IEEE Conference on Information Visualization as an independent source about IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications. Levivich (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at you twist to explain away in-depth sourcing, while simultaneously complaining about other people supposedly twisting GNG to produce a different outcome. You are not even addressing the paper I mentioned, "Chen, Paul, & O'Keefe" (not "Chen"), which is a journal paper from 2001 (not a conference paper from 2000) published by Wiley (not IEEE). I replaced my earlier choice of reference, Chen, with Chen, Paul, & O'Keefe, because it is more in-depth and doesn't even have a whiff of non-independence. The 2001 paper is almost entirely about publication patterns in CG&A. The authors may have intended to use CG&A as an example, but in producing that example they ended up doing an in-depth study of CG&A. And a paper about cover art of CG&A is a paper about CG&A. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you talking about a different paper than the one I linked to? Levivich (talk) 05:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Chen Paul & O'Keefe. From the references in the current version of the article. Chen, Chaomei; Paul, Ray J.; O'Keefe, Bob (2001). "Fitting the jigsaw of citation: Information visualization in domain analysis". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 52 (4): 315–330. doi:10.1002/1532-2890(2000)9999:9999<::aid-asi1074>3.0.co;2-2. If you search the title on Google Scholar you'll find a freely readable link; I'm not sure whether it's piracy-free enough to link directly here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK I just looked at it. Like the others, it's a paper about domain visualization, it's not about CG&A, it just uses CG&A articles as a data set upon which to perform domain visualization. There are a lot of people who have downloaded Wikipedia articles and done all sorts of analyses on them and then published papers... those papers aren't SIGCOV of Wikipedia. Levivich (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What it's intended to be about (a demonstration of a method of visualization) and what most of its content is actually about (a detailed analysis of publication patterns in CG&A) are two different things. We don't have to imagine the intent of the author to use what sources say. And yes, I would argue that those papers are SIGCOV of Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at Nakazawa, too. It's another paper that uses CG&A articles as a data set for a study. It's not about CG&A, the publication, at all. Levivich (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No true Scotsman. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to disagree with you again, but I know at least one true Scotsman. Levivich (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. I see sigcov of the publication in the Chen, Paul & O'Keefe piece. Similarly, I see sigcov Nakazawa, Itoh & Saito. I'm unable to read the Holosphere piece, but coverage of a cover of a publication is coverage of the publication. By the above definition of sigcov, the 4 sentences in Ruller provide sigcov that can be summarized. The 2 sentences in Salomon provide sigcov that can be summarized.
Suffice it to say, we have enough here to write a start class article about this subject by summarizing secondary sources, augmented with verifiable information from primary sources, and without original research. If we're truly concerned this magazine is being promoted here, we could remove any non-independent primary sourced claims and still be left with an article. —siroχo 03:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • full merge. I've gone back-and-forth on this more than I have on nearly anything in a while. I don't think this meets the sourcing requirements of WP:N. The coverage is much closer to "in passing" than to "significant" IMO. That said, we do have a notion that some topics are more intrinsically notable than others (see WP:CORP for example) and our bar for inclusion should vary a bit because of that. To me, this is the type of thing we should be covering if the sources come close. And I'd push for this to be its own article if I felt that was the best way to present the information. But I think a more-or-less full merge (maybe not the editors-in-chief list) of the article into List of IEEE publications is just as good as this article is very stubby and, given the dearth sources, really can't be more than that. Honestly I'm fine with a keep also, and I had an IAR keep argument written out but then changed my mind as I think we should stay inside of our guidelines and not use IAR unless doing so is clearly more helpful to the reader. Hobit (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • And yes, I know that involves reformatting, and probably splitting, that target. If folks feel that's not viable, I'm back to weak keep by IAR. Hobit (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You have an idiosyncratic definition of "very stubby". To me, this article has already moved beyond start class to C class. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I suppose so. It has 4 very short paragraphs, including the lede, of anything that's not filler. IMO that's pretty stubby, but I could see how others could disagree. Hobit (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit: I really can't see how merge would work in this instance? List of IEEE publications has hundreds of publications, with no text about any of them. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, as I thought about it more I reached the conclusion it would be a major change and so maybe a keep is better. But I think a bare list, as we have now, is a bit useless. I'd think we could do something like a "list of episodes" thing and split magazines from journals. Still a long list, but not a crazy one. Include years active, how often it's published and some details about each one (say under 500 words). Given that is such a huge change, I do think that a keep is probably the right answer for now. Hobit (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea was presumably just to list blue links, but few editors are masochistic enough to bother systematically creating articles on academic journals at present. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like User:Hobit, I believe this is quite possible. If the text of List of IEEE publications gets too long, it can be broken down by publication type (e.g. journals, magazines) and subsequently field (EE, SE, etc.). Suriname0 (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What advantage would this have over just having separate articles for each publication? Lumping stuff together doesn't really improve notability (because now you have to find sources about the whole collection, not necessarily easier than finding sources about the individual members) and doesn't help readers find information about individual publications (for instance when following links to those publications from references on other articles). So who benefits from it? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Benefit is that the publications that don't meet WP:N would have a place to have basic info. I think that's an improvement. Hobit (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it's much easier to show notability for the collection; in searching for sources discussing CG&A, I found several nice sources discussing e.g. the history of IEEE computer graphics publications, or the history of IEEE magazines. All the big publishers seem to attract coverage in a way that individual journals rarely do. Anyway, it benefits readers if it prevents fragmentation of information and provides context on under-covered (aka non-notable) topics, as Hobit says. But benefit is the crux of the issue, right? There are lots of non-notable topics that would benefit readers if we covered them in stand-alone articles, cf. the on-going debates about sport bios, or Google Chrome version history, etc. I think Wikipedia is probably worse if we allowed thousands of non-notable trade publications to put up a free marketing page, and I think Wikipedia is probably better if we allowed thousands of non-notable academic publications to put up a free marketing page. It's not a surprise I'm biased in favor of the academic journals and think they're useful, but until we have a policy that reflects a consensus beyond my personal biases in favor of academics, I'm reticent to explicitly endorse it. Suriname0 (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could add those sources to List of IEEE publications, to demonstrate that it is actually notable as a list and viable as a merge target. Currently it only has non-independent sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 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 keep‎. Daniel (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of fellows of IEEE Computer Society[edit]

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

There are more than 1000 such fellows at the moment, not really a small number.[19] (a possibly incomplete list, according to that page). May be better suited for a category for the fellows, but as a list it seems rather impractical and not distinctive or selective enough as an award. Fram (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not versed in list versus category policy but there are 16 already-created equivalent pages (IEEE Fellows grouped by member society, per IEEE custom) gathered at List of IEEE fellows along with some red links, so I was trying to follow the existing pattern. Turtlecrown (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. By separating fellows out into groups by sub-organizations within IEEE, providing sortable tables, and giving the reason for each fellow's election, these list articles provide useful structure beyond the category Category:Fellow Members of the IEEE. All members of these lists are automatically notable by WP:PROF, so I don't think there is a problem with them being indiscriminate. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, true, it says " which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ", but is a +5000 membership really "highly selective"? There are about 250 new IEEE fellows every year (all societies combined). Fram (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      So? There are on average more US state legislators elected per year and yet we consider them all notable. It is not about raw numbers; "a highly selective honor" means one reserved to a small fraction of the total membership. In the case of IEEE Fellowship, that fraction is that only 0.1% of the total membership (one in every thousand members) can be elected per year, by an in-depth process that involves soliciting detailed letters of recommendation from experts about the proposed fellows' accomplishments. So yes, it is highly selective. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You can be elected as Fellow only once, so comparing the yearly addition with the total membership is not accurate. More than 1% of the membership are fellows actually, 5000+ of 400,000[20]. Fram (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, and that compares favorably with other selective fellowships that are limited to, say, 2% of total membership rather than 0.1%/year. It is still highly selective. Only a very small fraction of members will ever achieve that distinction. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to IEEE Computer Society. We don't need a separate list just to display one person. Ajf773 (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The list is woefully incomplete and should be expanded. The reason for its incomplete state is that it was barely begun before Fram dragged it here to AfD. There is far more than one person who could be listed even if we limited it to bluelinks (which the other IEEE society lists do not currently do). See the other society lists collected at List of IEEE fellows for examples of what this should be. Also, your merge target makes no sense; we should not single out this one society's fellows for merger there when IEEE has many other societies for which we have well-developed lists of fellows. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I initally thought that all these pages should be tables on their respective pages. However:
    • IEEE Computer Society was deleted and redirected in 2022 so a merge wouldn't currently be practicable.
    • As far as I understand (which is not entirely), the fellows are fellows of the IEEE as a whole, not fellows of the society. They are just internally categorised by society membership. If this is true, then all these list pages are somewhat of a misnomer. The IEEE Electronics Packaging Society uses the wording "List of IEEE Fellows in EPS", for example. So it's unclear if a merge, even if possible, would be quite correct.
    Turtlecrown (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is short now, but the nomination itself indicates that it can be expanded, and it provides information in an at-a-glance way that a category can't. XOR'easter (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In some ways the closest analogue to this list is not the ones for the other IEEE societies, but List of fellows of the Association for Computing Machinery. Which seems to be complete, although it doesn't describe fellows' contributions. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This meets NLIST and likely LISTPEOPLE becaus it is likely that many of the individuals designated fellows are notable. The list should be expanded, not deleted. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ミラP@Miraclepine 23:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:NLIST as every name listed is notable, and although it is expansive it is finite. Curbon7 (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Members are notable, list potentially provides other ways of browsing our content on these academics, well-defined group of subjects. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:59, 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 keep‎. Daniel (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soa Mattrix[edit]

Soa Mattrix (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)

Sources are not in-depth and don’t seem to discuss about the subject in detail. WP:TOOSOON Xclusivzik (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Xclusivzik (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are a number of claims in the article that might lead to one concluding that this person is notable if they were true, but the claims don't seem to actually be true; the article seems to have substantial errors:
    1. There's a claim in the article that the individual's song, "Mina Nawe", was #1 in South Africa. If that's true, the individual would pass WP:NMUSIC#2. However, there's no source, I can't independently verify it, and I doubt its veracity.
    2. There's also a claim that the individual has had multiple 2-platinum certified songs; this would pass WP:NMUSIC#3 (Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country) if true. The sources for this are TimesLive (Wikipedia article), ZaTunes, and RISA. The TimesLive piece doesn't actually support this claim, and the RISA website notes that Soa Mattrix was one of 3 featured artists on "Nomathemba", a certified platinum song by DJ Givy Baby, but I don't think that this sort of credit is qualifying for purposes of NMUSIC#3. And, RISA doesn't actually support the 2x platinum claim for any of the artist's own songs. Meanwhile, ZaTunes is not listed at WP:A/S, and it doesn't really appear to be the sort of site that can be used to establish claims of music certification.
    3. Then come the claims regarding music awards; the article notes that the artist has been nominated multiple times in the South African Amapiano Music Awards. Given the relative recency of the Amapiano genre, and the lack of an apparent established awards series, I don't think that this would help meet the bar set in WP:NMUSIC#8 (i.e. [h]as won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award).
Overall, I'm not seeing anything that's indicating notability due to something subject-specific, but I don't have access to non-English publications that might have covered the artist significantly. As such, I leave the bold as a comment, but I'd lean towards deletion if WP:SIGCOV cannot be found. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per below; it's not clear to me why the one RISA source that's cited in the article is wrong, but the link provided below is fairly convincing that "Mina Nawe" is certified at higher than gold (WP:NMUSIC#3) and that Soa Mattrix is the primary artist for the song. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject has a Double Platinum certified record and was also featured on a Platinum record certified by RiSA. It states here on a green source that the subject was nominated for two awards. Haven't done a full research but I believe that they pass #3 and #8 of WP:MUSICBIO, and here is the lengthy and in-depth detailed coverage. The subject also released a collaborative studio album with DJ Maphorisa titled Tintswalo (2021) through SME Africa with guest appearances from Kabza de Small, Boohle and Blxckie just to mention a few, they also released Finest (2022) also under SME Africa, of which I believe pass #5 of WP:MUSICBIO which states that: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).".dxneo (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dxneo: Can you provide a source that verifies the double platinum certification? I'm having trouble finding it in the source cited in the article for that claim, and I'm a bit doubtful as to the claim. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Red-tailed hawk, Here is the link to the official RiSA website, I also don't know why it does not appear when accessing that template generated source (which leads to the older version of the site).
    Alternatively you can:
    1. go to that cited source, then
    2. go to the hamburger option on the top right corner
    3. go to Certifications, then
    4. Gold & Platinum
    5. search "Soa Mattrix"
    I believe you'll now find two certified records, one certified Platinum and the other Double Platinum.
    Note that the subject already passed notability through #6 and #8 per WP:MUSICBIO. dxneo (talk) 11:20, 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 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. Daniel (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sudha Productions[edit]

Sudha Productions (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 reliable source , fail WP:NCORP. AShiv1212 (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: content is very restricted, and almost no any inline references. Serdaray85 (talk) 09:28, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MIPIM[edit]

MIPIM (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:ARTSPAM sourced to subject and press releases, mostly. Other sources do not treat the subject in depth. Does not meet WP:NCORP -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:49, 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 Withdrawn‎. I spoke to soon. Found some sources establishing WP:GNG. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Graessle[edit]

Adam Graessle (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)

Adam Graessle was a punter who never played a professional game in the NFL. He went undrafted in 2009. A review of Newspapers.com and a Google search shows only transactional articles. Thus, there is no significant coverage establishing notability, failing WP:GNG. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:50, 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. Daniel (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Millen Sisters[edit]

The Millen Sisters (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) 14:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And even the NYTimes coverage is really about the Got Milk campaign rather than this duo. I suppose a redirect to Got Milk would be merited, but I seriously doubt this subject is even important enough to justify that. ShelbyMarion (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in the NYT report. It talks about milk, not the sisters. Just like @Oaktree b, the only source I could find was from San Diego Reader. The article is barely notable. TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 05:11, 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 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! 06:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C.B. Satpathy[edit]

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

I was a little suspicious of WP:PROMOTION but I saw that another editor previously established notability so I trusted that and instead tagged with copy edit and like resume and figured it was okay, then when I went to create the redirect from the subject's full name and as you can see, I saw that it was protected from a bunch of previous self promotion concerns: pretty much what I expected with the original article I'm nominating here. So I'm raising this for discussion here. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish) 13:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No sourcing found, wow does this read like a PROMO for the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 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 merge‎ to Long Beach Township, New Jersey. Daniel (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LBTBP[edit]

LBTBP (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 speedy tag was deleted and then as far as I can tell, the article was swapped with Long Beach Township Beach Patrol to avoid scrutiny? No mention of notability, proposing delete microbiologyMarcus (petri dish) 14:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Local organization sourced only to local organization's own website. The lead could be condensed and merged to Long Beach Township, New Jersey. Reywas92Talk 19:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Reywas92! The speedy tag was temporary while the page was being fixed. As for the citations, they were the ones used on this page before the horseplay issues occurred. The page should likely not be merged because it already was existing page before my rectifying edits. 76.117.162.190 (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @76.117.162.190: Looking at the page history, there is no evidence of "horseplay". However, you have removed maintenance tags from the page without rectifying the issue (e.g., removing the uncategorized tag). Can you provide evidence to support your claim or provide sources to prove the notability of this topic? P.S. It would also be beneficial for you to register for an account instead of using an IP address. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Significa liberdade: Hi! The horseplay that I am talking about deals with an apparent hoax regarding a so called “Tony’s Beach” (See user Drmies’ talk page) originally added to this page by a now blocked user (See user Tonys Beach Enthusiast). It seems that an administrator blanked the page because of the “Tony’s Beach” hoax. Since I was not aware of that prior to my edits (and my previous comments calling them “rectifying”), I assumed I was simply fixing the page and rightly removing the tags in the process. I now see why that is not true. Because I am not the original (by original I mean person who edited the page before the horseplay) editor, I am not completely versed in the sources and notability of it, and I have no problem merging any relevant information to a different page. I cannot register for an account because it seems that a blocked user was operating under my IP, and it says that I am barred from creating an account because of that. Lastly, now that I have been enlightened on the topic, I changed my stance on the issue (See below). Thank you, and I hope you understand. 76.117.162.190 (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Microbiology Marcus. I appreciate your review and care for the accuracy of this page. This article was recently subject to horseplay where all of the information was deleted. I essentially rewrote the article and returned it to its previous state. As for the different articles, I saw both and edited one so I wouldn’t have to do double work. 76.117.162.190 (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails wp:GNG and is written in a weirdly self-serving tone—blindlynx 23:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your input. Could you please explain what you mean by “self-serving tone” and give examples of from the article of this. 76.117.162.190 (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to respond to every comment here. The article is not written in an encyclopedia tone but in one that celebrates this organization—blindlynx 01:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that I do not need to reply to every comment. However, I choose to do so to be respectful and to attempt to improve my my editing skills. Could you kindly identify specific instances of tone that celebrates the LBTBP so I can edit as necessary. Thank you. 76.117.162.190 (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire article is at best a florid description of life-guarding. Only the list of beaches is obviously unique to this organization underscoring it's lack of notability—blindlynx 19:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your statement is incorrect because the article does explain more specific things (beyond the list of beaches) that sets the LBTBP apart from other lifeguarding, with examples being: the Beach Badge Checkers, the unique events and culture, and the programs that are only offered by the LBTBP. Had it only been about lifeguarding, it would have gone into specifics about how lifeguards rescue people. This article instead explains how multiple aspects of the patrol contribute to its goal of serving and protecting the public and beach environment to ensure a safe and enjoyable experience.76.117.162.190 (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Long Beach Township, New Jersey The article does include some relevant information that is of importance when talking about the LBTBP, and the edits and tone seem to be accurate and consistent with the contributing primary sources. However, it is seemingly not notable enough on its own and any relevant information can be transferred to a different page. 76.117.162.190 (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you pretending that these are someone else's edits? You're the main contributor to that page—blindlynx 01:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not pretending to not be talking about my own edits. In fact, I am simply stating what I see objectively from this article from my point of view. As I stated, if the tone is not neutral, it is because the source’s tone is not completely neutral. I tried my best to make the page as unbiased as possible. What I stated is accurate according to the sources I used. Please remember that I am also merely returning the page to the state it was in before the aforementioned horseplay. 76.117.162.190 (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The information relayed to this page is accurate and reliable based on the cited sources. The information is also unique and notable (see Ship Bottom Beach Patrol, which does not provide most of the same programs or amenities that the LBTBP does) and is written in a mostly neutral tone.2601:84:C900:BCC0:C2A:7896:892D:B378 (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter what services Ship Bottom Beach Patrol provides unless that beach patrol has been verified as notable according to Wikipedia's standards. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / Redirect to Long Beach Township, New Jersey There is no evidence of any independent notability for the Long Beach Township Beach Patrol. The sources are almost all from the organization itself, with the single mention in an article by the Asbury Park Press being a trivial mention that lacks in-depth coverage. What relevant material here that is present should be greatly condensed and merged to the article for the township. Alansohn (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alansohn: Thank you for your insight on this matter. Could you help identify what information may be relevant from this article so I can prepare a few condensed lines about it on the Long Beach Township, New Jersey page? Your help would be greatly appreciated. 76.117.162.190 (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge / Redirect to Long Beach Township, New Jersey As noted above, none of the sources verify notability. All but one source is primary, and the one secondary source is an overview of a single event. If there is valuable information backed up by even one secondary source about this place, it can be merged. Otherwise, delete or redirect both this page and Long Beach Township Beach Patrol. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for contributing. It is truly appreciated. I am working hard as we speak to prepare a condensed paragraph or two of relevant and notable information to add to the Long Beach Township, New Jersey page. Have a wonderful day! 76.117.162.190 (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Doesn't appear to be notable but probably deserves a mention in the Long Beach Township, New Jersey article. A full merge would give undue weight to the organisation. From reading the target article, it's not obvious where LBTBP fits. Maybe, mention in a new Tourism section or add a profile of the beaches in the Geography section and mention there? Rupples (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge to Long Beach Township, New Jersey, where it should mentioned, tho not in such depth/ and without MOS:PUFFERY. 08:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was already deleted‎. Daniel (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtar Lawa[edit]

Akhtar Lawa (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 and unelected politician just belonging to a political party. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails to comply with WP:GNG, apparent lack of in-depth coverage.
ContributorMix (talk) 22:21, 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! 07:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Til Death Do Us Part (American TV series)[edit]

'Til Death Do Us Part (American 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:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2019 DonaldD23 talk to me 12:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per below and the new sources, Keep and retitle; glad to see we're able to save this rather than leave it to a redirect (though I'll note many Canadian shows in the 2000s were made as co-productions with American networks to get them Canadian content credit, but it still originated in Canada and should be retitled as such). Nate • (chatter) 01:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Filucci, Siera (2022-03-01). "'Til Death Do Us Part". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.

      The review notes: "Finding humor in real-life tales of abuse and murder is tricky and not for everyone. Some will find 'Til Death Do Us Part sick and deplorable, while others will treat it like any fictional thriller. The acting and writing is mediocre, but it does the job, and you don't expect much more from a show like this anyway. The sexual elements are played up dramatically, and they're definitely not for kids."

    2. Bellafante, Ginia (2007-03-19). "Love? Obey? These Vows Are to Nag or to Shoot". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.

      The review notes: "The tone is high camp, with Mr. Waters’s influence always present even when he himself is not. Few architects of popular culture have made the habits of heterosexual life seem sillier, and here the mere sight of Mr. Waters’s fixed smirk reminds us that smug marrieds have no real claim to their smugness. The show makes fun of striver partners, supplicant partners, old men who chase young flesh."

    3. Kronke, David (2007-03-19). "Show Fails at Mocking Deadly Failed Marriages". Los Angeles Daily News. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.

      The review notes: "John Waters, who hosts Court TV's new docudrama series {'}}Til Death Do Us Part, isn't a mogul, and he's not really an animatronic ghoul, either. But he's an inspired choice to host this docudrama series based on real-life crimes of passion -- or, more precisely, crimes when all the passion has seeped out of a marriage.  Unfortunately, the series isn't written sharply enough to fully exploit Waters' dry sense of humor. He plays the Groom Reaper, who introduces and closes each episode with snide insights into the pitfalls of betrothal."

    4. Meyer, Norma (2007-04-23). "For oddball Waters, art exaggerates life". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.

      The article notes: "Every Monday night, Waters stars as the Groom Reaper on Court TV's " 'Til Death Do Us Part," a scripted half-hour series based on true cases about wedded bliss gone so bad one spouse offs the other. (The violence is inventive -- one hubby bludgeoned his better half with their kid's lunch pail). Much like Rod Serling or Alfred Hitchcock, a campy Waters pops in at the beginning and end of episodes, which have titles like "The Pond Scum Murder.""

    5. Heldenfels, Rich (2007-03-18). "'Til Death' Is Dark - John Waters Comedy on Court TV Inspired by Murderous Spouses". Akron Beacon Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.

      The article notes: "The writer-director of Hairspray, Cry-Baby, Pink Flamingos, Serial Mom and other films plays the "Groom Reaper," the host and narrator of Til Death Do Us Part, a 13-episode dark comedy premiering at 10 p.m. Monday on Court TV.  Inspired by true stories, the series presents tales of married couples, one or both of whom decide that "happily ever after" involves putting a mate in the grave."

    6. Simon, Jeff (2007-03-25). "Court TV's " 'Til Death' is a crime". The Buffalo News. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.

      The review notes: "That's why I rejoiced -- not too strong a word -- when I heard that Waters was going to provide commentary for a Court TV series called " 'Til Death Do Us Part." There, I said to myself, is a media marriage made in heaven -- Court TV and shock auteurist Waters, the possessor of one of America's truly unique brains. ... And then I saw the show.  It's, hands down, the most wretched TV waste of talent in the new millennium thus far. The show is a godawful crime-fiction series about homicidal marriages in which Waters, with his 1954 pimp mustache, plays the "Groom Reaper," an inane variation on the Crypt Keeper in those old "Tales of the Crypt" numbers. The show is like something profoundly awful from the '50s but without anything even resembling the screwball camp twist Waters would have given it. It needs, frankly, to never see light of day again."

    7. Werts, Diane (2007-12-21). "Waters, Dark Tales Make Perfect Union". Sun Sentinel. Newsday. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.

      The review notes: "Never quite real, yet uncannily authentic, Waters cuts just the right bloodless figure to host 'Til Death Do Us Part. He's got that walking-corpse-like aura so down pat.  Court TV's first scripted series is an anthology of ironic half-hours purportedly based on real-life stories of wedded ends. (The show premiered Monday with back-to-back installments that will repeat at 11 tonight.) ... No, it's an ever-shifting blend of duplicity, wit and, at times, even PG-13 slasher gore. The stories are plainly written and somewhat cheaply filmed."

    8. Hughes, Mike (2008-07-02). "John Waters still believes in ' 'Til Death Do Us Part'". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.

      The article notes: "The first season had 13 fun episodes, but they may have used the best of the spousicide tales, Waters says. "It's hard to find something that is intriguing and has plot twists." Besides, the original show was on Court TV. Now that channel calls itself Tru TV and avoids anything that requires actors. So the original series now is a being treated as a one-time event.  The 13 episodes have been packaged into a three-disc list, including outtakes of the elegantly macabre John Waters at work."

    9. Boedeker, Hal (2007-03-19). "Much 'I Do' About Quirky John Waters - As the Groom Reaper, the Film Director Brings the Right Touch to ' 'Til Death Do Us Part.'". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.

      The article notes: "The Groom Reaper opens and closes `Til Death Do Us Part, an anthology series that debuts with back-to-back episodes. First up is "The Airplane Murder," explaining how one spouse has trouble disposing of the other's body. That episode screens in the show's regular 10 p.m. Monday slot. Then "Funeral Parlor Murder" premieres at 10:30 p.m. Law & Order takes a serious approach in telling stories ripped from the headlines. 'Til Death Do Us Part travels a darkly comic route."

    10. Brooks, Caryn (2007-04-06). "''Til Death' not guilty enough pleasure". Times Union. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.

      The review notes: "The absence of his usual in-depth participation clearly shows.The program doesn't quite hit the marks one anticipates from the Waters brand. When he pops up at the wedding scene that starts each show with his arch double entendres and mischievous gleam, the anticipation mounts and the danse macabre begins. But the show that follows offers rushed scenarios, flat characters and obvious twists - all hampered by its half-hour format."

    11. Cohen, Aryeh Dean (2007-09-12). "Enjoying the murderous waters". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.

      The review notes: "Waters, with his trademark pencil-thin moustache and by now gaunt face, is the perfect host for the ghoulish goings-on, which begin with our host attending a wedding. ... That's just the opening of this tongue-in-cheek production that has one of the more brilliant commercial break graphics: A lovely rose fading quickly, then covered in blood, with the graphic: "I Love You to Death," while The Wedding March plays briskly in the background, then is suddenly silenced."

    12. Hedgpeth, Steve (2007-03-18). "Awfully wedded life". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.

      The article notes: ""'Til Death Do Us Part" presents stories inspired by true cases of marriages gone bad - very bad - with each episode bookended by introductions and sign-offs by Waters in the guise of the Groom Reaper, a spectral figure on hand to kiss the bride. Unfortunately, it's a kiss of death."

    13. Garvin, Glenn (2007-03-18). "To tell the truth, murder can be quite entertaining". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.

      The review notes: "'Til Death Do Us Part, which debuts on Court TV at 10 p.m. Monday, is the perfect vehicle for his macabre glee. An anthology series with fictionalized scripts based on real cases, every episode starts with a wedding, then skips forward to the exact moment the marriage irretrievably breaks toward homicide. The fun comes in guessing who's going to murder whom: the greedy, lecherous old doctor or his gold-digging trophy wife? The creepy undertaker or his cheating spouse?"

    14. Ostrow, Joanne (2007-03-16). "Television - Killer couples in "'Til Death Do Us Part"". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.

      The article notes: "This "'Til Death Do Us Part," not to be confused with the short-lived Carmen Electra reality series of 2004, checks in with a different set of newlyweds each episode. Happy couples may be all the same, but unhappy to the point of murderous couples are unhappy/murderous in their own ways. That's what makes an anthology."

    15. Schoolcraft, Sarah (2007-03-19). "On 'Til Death Do Us Part' it's all about the groom". The Daily News. Zap2it. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.

      The article notes: "The network's first-ever original scripted series, premiering 10 tonight on cable channel 41 in Batavia, features an inspired performance by Waters as The Groom Reaper, a wry harbinger of incidences of marital bliss doomed to unholy homicide. In each of the series' 13 episodes, Waters' Reaper weaves these twisted, true-life tales from wedding to morgue, giving his two cents -- and then some -- to the camera."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 'Til Death Do Us Part to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in addition to the references listed above, there's also one in the Hollywood Reporter]. Though I'd support renaming it to 'Til Death Do Us Part (Canadian TV series). Time and time again, I see User:Donaldd23 nominating Canadian TV shows for deletion - which invariably fail. And when they don't fail, Redirect is a better outcom. Perhaps they should be avoiding this topic area. I don't see that redirecting a Canadian TV show to a foreign network is appropriate. Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:47, 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 merge‎ to Luhansk People's Republic. Similar to corresponding AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hero of the Donetsk People's Republic, consensus here not to retain, going merge as an ATD that was discussed and had similar support to delete. Daniel (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hero of the Luhansk People's Republic[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, only one source which mentions the award in passing. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not a notable award. It can be mentioned in articles on recipients.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Russian-language sources is that there is no freedom of the press left in Russia. Notability cannot be established by sources that are unreliable because they are controlled by the Kremlin. The last of the four sources (Кавказ.Реалии) seems to be reliable, but it doesn't contain more than a statement about the winners of that award. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Award serves to prop up Russian propaganda claims to a region of Ukraine and award is emblem of occupation and not notable on it's own right. Could create new page on Russian attempts to assert administrative control. Stoptheprop (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reliable sources simply do not write about this, as it’s fake symbols of a fake country. How is this not obvious when even its creators dropped all the pretences over a year ago?  —Michael Z. 04:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above Parham wiki (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable. Polyamorph (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect and merge to LPR main article (probably in the "Recognition and international relations" section). Possible search term and some of the content is useful (demonstrates the close relations between LPR and Chechyna officials, for example). Dan the Animator 19:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because it is award of an internationatly unrecognized entity doesn't mean it isn't notable, we have articles for Artsakh awards. Nor does the lack of SIGCOV in English sources mean anything, there is lots of SIGCOV in Russian and Ukrainian sources.Kursant504 (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Award serves to prop up Russian propaganda claims to a region of Ukraine and award is emblem of occupation and not notable in it's own right. Could create new page on Russian attempts to assert symbolic/administrative control. Stoptheprop (talk) 28 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Duplicate vote. Already voted above.Shaan SenguptaTalk 12:51, 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 Donetsk People's Republic. Consensus exists below that the article does not meet our policies & guidelines for sourcing, and that the sources proposed either aren't SIGCOV or aren't reliable. Split support for both merge and outright deleting so going with merge per ATD. Daniel (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hero of the Donetsk People's Republic[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, only one source which mentions the award in passing. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not a notable award. It can be mentioned in articles on recipients.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge Non-notable, but there should be a couple sentences on it somewhere. North8000 (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete not notable on it's own right. Maybe we can make an article along the lines of "Russian Separatist Awards" and include Hero of the Luhansk People's Republic and other even less notable awards. Scu ba (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-notable × ∞ = infinitely non-notable.  —Michael Z. 04:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: probably to Donetsk People's Republic. Deletion is not preferred per WP:ATD since this is a valid target. Curbon7 (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BEFORE requires a search for Russian-language sources. The corresponding article in Russian ru:Герой Донецкой Народной Республики has lots of references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources like "i1289.photobucket.com/albums/", "www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dVWH_k9xIA", "Газета ДНР" (controlled by the self-proclaimed government of the DNR). As far as I see, all the sources in the article are controlled by the Kremlin or the Donetsk People's Republic. The problem with Russian-language sources is that there is no freedom of the press left in Russia. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A source controlled by the Government of Russia is reliable for a statement that someone was given the award by Russia/Donetsk People's Republic. Though it is not necessarily reliable for stating the someone was not given the award, since people sometimes are airbrushed from Russian history. But such a source is not evidence of notability.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Award serves to prop up Russian propaganda claims to a region of Ukraine and award is emblem of occupation and not notable on it's own right. Could create new page on Russian attempts to assert administrative control. Stoptheprop (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you! Let's together create page "Russian attempts to assert administrative control on Ukraine"? I think would be cool if we include not only 2014-nowadays, but earlier period such as Russian Empire period? Stoptheprop FYI Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 08:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Russian-language sources on Pro-russian topics is that there is no freedom of the press left in Russia. They all act undergo government totalitarism agenda. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just delete. There’s literally nothing notable here to contribute to other subjects.  —Michael Z. 04:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess one source can be used in Joseph Kobzon. The other is just “Kadyrov held a parade.”  —Michael Z. 04:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of ideas here. Definitely worthy of a relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe this page ought to be kept because it relates to an award that exists - you may not like the politics that led to its creation (I certainly do not!) but that doesn't alter the fact that it has been established. It's on my website - medals.org.uk - which is frequently cited as a source for information. When I have a moment I'll see if I can improve this page. Megan C Robertson (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But please remember that we need reliable sources. And since medals.org.uk is self-published, it's no RS. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fake symbol of a fake country. If I create "Honored hero of Stoppropistan" and say it has an orange and purple flag, and I personally assign it to people who kiss my ass, will you be including that on your website too? Stoptheprop (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Worth noting that it is notable because it is the highest award of the separatist movement. We have articles about the high awards of other entities not widely internationally recognized like Hero of Artsakh. The mere existance of an article about an award is not an endorsement of the award. There are many sources about the award, just most are not english. Just because you can't find source in english doesnt mean it isnt covered. Kursant504 (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    as User:Antonio_Vinzaretti points out, the problem with Russian-language sources on Pro-Russia topics is that there is no freedom of the press left in Russia and they all act under the instruction of the Kremlin Stoptheprop (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if Russia having censorship doesn't mean that Russian media coverage cannot demonstrate SIGCOV, nor does the use of the award for propaganda mean it isn't notable. We have articles about Confederate awards like the Confederate Medal of Honor, but having that article doesn't mean that Wikipedia is pro-Confederacy.Kursant504 (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources that are clearly non-neutral, non-independent, and unreliable do not contribute to SIGCOV and are generally not allowed, regardless of their language or place of publication. But it’s no coincidence that Russia’s propaganda about its aggression against Ukraine falls into this category.  —Michael Z. 14:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect and merge to DPR main article (probably in the "Recognition and international relations" section). Possible search term and some of the content is useful (demonstrates the close relations between DPR and Chechyna officials, for example). Dan the Animator 19:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Award serves to prop up Russian propaganda claims to a region of Ukraine and award is emblem of occupation and not notable in it's own right. Could create new page on Russian attempts to assert symbolic/administrative control. Stoptheprop (talk) 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Stoptheprop: I suggest you self-revert because you have only one vote. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... or - maybe better - strike one of your two votes using <strike> and </strike>. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ah, the discussion was relisted so wasn't sure if that meant we needed to restate our position Stoptheprop (talk) 14:06, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon O'Hurley[edit]

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

This article was BLPPRODded by me a few days ago (see my reasoning in history) and was contested because of the IMDB link (note that BLPPROD applies to articles with unreliable references too, and IMDB is not reliable per WP:IMDB) and sources were added. However, I don’t see how these sources prove notability to the actress since they are just passing mentions. If one contests the deletion, please supply reliable sources that do not mention her in passing per WP:N. Spinixster (chat!) 12:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Theatre. Spinixster (chat!) 12:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Well, most of her characters per Rotten Tomatoes are listed as "Unknown", meaning they weren't important enough to be named while on screen. That doesn't get you a wiki article unless you have some extensive media coverage that talks about your career. We don't, so this is still a !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (The BLP prod was not "contested", it was declined by me; the rubric is clear that it requires literally no sources to be present when placed.) A quick search on Proquest gave multiple hits with actual discussion of this actor's role in various stage plays, not just passing mentions, and I added a selection to the article, as well as the Rotten Tomatoes link which I believe is generally considered more reliable than IMDb. There are lots more Proquest hits. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that just because the actress was in multiple stage plays does not mean she is notable. WP:NACTOR says that one is notable when [t]he person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Are the roles significant? Are the plays notable? Is she mentioned significantly?
    Also, note that per WP:RSP, Rotten Tomatoes is only reliable for critic ratings and news articles, and [t]here is consensus that Rotten Tomatoes should not be used for biographical information, as it is user-generated content along with a lack of oversight. Spinixster (chat!) 14:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a theatre actor in three non-notable plays in the LA area from 1996 to 2000, she is not notable. As a TV actor, not a single citation has been proposed with significant coverage of significant roles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, no significant roles in her resume. --Mika1h (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found her on Encyclopedia.com to provide sources for some of the claims, but I still don't know that she passes NACTOR. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no. The general consensus is that encyclopedias like these are tertiary sources and while it may be reliable, I wouldn't use them to prove notability (see also WP:TERTIARY, Wikipedia:Identifying and using tertiary sources, etc). Quoted from this discussion at RSN: Bear in mind that just because something is in Encyclopedia.com doesn't mean that it is notable in Wikipedia terms. I would suggest using it only as a supplementary source articles for which notability is demonstrated through other sources. Spinixster (chat!) 14:22, 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. Consensus seems clear here. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of events named massacres[edit]

List of events named massacres (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:LISTN; the topic "events named massacres" has not been discussed as a group by reliable sources. It also a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE; lists based on a shared term lack context and scope.

Further, lists of massacres in general produce WP:NPOV issues; the term "massacre" is extremely subjective, and there can be reasonable disagreements about what is and isn't a massacre - lists like these can't provide the necessary context to the use of the term to avoid NPOV violations. BilledMammal (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I would encourage all voters to read the very long discussion in Talk:List_of_events_named_massacres/Archive_10. I broadly disagree with the arguments presented by the nominator there - the fact that some historical events are disputed is reason to form consensus on those articles and then bring that consensus to the aggregate list. There was also a long discussion to rename the article to what it is now from "List of massacres". The discussion is here but it was over 15 years ago and consensus has moved significantly regarding list articles. I would actually support moving this back to List of massacres and amending the inclusion criteria to be based on the naming used in the included article, but there's well over a dozen pages of argumentation about that point so I'll just plant the flag here. Regardless of problems with this article, it seems pretty obvious it shouldn't be deleted. BrigadierG (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The last go round, a while ago, the inclusion criteria were tightened up so as to require multiple RS naming an event as a massacre, which seems plausible enough, but it is hard to see what useful purpose such an unwieldy list serves, especially given the politicization/sloganeering of words and phrases like genocide, war crime and massacre.Selfstudier (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The list serves the purpose of WP:LISTPURP-NAV. This is also why the inclusion criteria also relies on independently notable examples only.BrigadierG (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see one massacre had two people killed, and another had one million killed. Category:Lists of massacres by country has 98 entries. Listing everything together despite it being from different countries, time periods, and situations, seems arbitrary. Dream Focus 19:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Massacre is an extremely contentious term, and the list will always be incomplete and full of discussions. It's best to delete the list and leave it to country-related lists. Jebiguess (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing encyclopedic about it. Lorstaking (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term "massacre" may be controversial, but the page does not say that these events are massacres, simply that they have been called massacres. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Even if the term "massacre" is not perfectly defined, this does not mean that the page should be removed. There are other similar cases, which are clearly of value such as List of deadliest floods and one could argue similarly, what makes a flood deadliest? GidiD (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Number of people dead? The criteria for that list seems very objective. BilledMammal (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A universal and objective criterion for the number of deaths is given, but the relevant definition of a flood is not given at all. I see several items in that list for which most of the deaths were due to mudslides. Four avalanches are mentioned. There are several dam failures and storm surges, both of which can involve a lot of water, but aren't necessarily what the average person thinks about when they're talking about floods. Ask yourself, e.g., whether Great Molasses Flood would properly belong on the list if three times as many people had died. I think that reasonable people could come to different conclusions about that. The List of deadliest floods is, therefore, no more objective than the List of events named massacres. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete so many die everyday of murder or killing listing only some here will violate POV बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this a list and not a list of lists? (or list of list of lists) Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:47, 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 redirect‎ to Wickham, Hampshire#Wickham and Knowle civil parish. Daniel (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wickham Common[edit]

Wickham Common (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 place is not a village, but instead is just a non-notable common. Source: I live here, but also Hampshire county council which describes this as "common land situated just off the Southwick Road".

Fails WP:V, WP:GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Wickham. Surprising to see somewhere here so near to where I grew up! BrigadierG (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to the sign on the road just before it, the indicated location is actually in North Boarhunt. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Wickham per BrigadierG-- Tumbuka Arch★★★ 13:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the nom I'm happy to redirect to Wickham, Hampshire, but since the article has no references, hard to see what their is to merge per se - the photo I suppose? FOARP (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Wickham - as mentioned above there's not actually much to merge. WaggersTALK 11:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete In the first place, it isn't in Wickham, or any other town/village. In the second place, to be mergeable, it has to be true first, which is a big problem, because at the moment the only part of the article which might be true is the location, and there's really nothing that can be done with that datum in a merge as it stands. Indeed, right now that location takes one to an absolutely featureless spot in GMaps. Third, the article is completely lacking in sources, so I can't even say, "well, at least it's a name on an OS map", because there's not even that reference to go to. I really do not understand why people are so intent on saving this, when at the moment there is nothing to save. Can anyone say what it really is/was, or give any history for it? Can anyone even show that it is/was a real thing of any kind? Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wickham, Hampshire for now. Wickham Common appears to be marked as a settlement on Magicmap and as a common on older OS maps. There's scatterings of houses along the lanes surrounding the common but they don't amount to a village. Possibly a hamlet but no other facilities, so think this needs to pass the GNG and it doesn't look like doing so. Unfortunately, there is no parish heading or geography section in the target article which would be a more precise redirect. The common is mentioned here in Wickham parish (4th line down) [24]. Rupples (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wickham, Hampshire per Rupples above. If it's listed on OS maps it's worth having a redirect. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose these redirect suggestions given that (a) the article on Wickham says nothing about this place, and (b) as I've already pointed out, it isn't in Wickham! Why in the heck is everyone so dead set on these misleading redirects??? Mangoe (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Baby Jesus cries and a fairy loses its wings every time an article is actually deleted rather than turned into a redirect. But for reals, I live here and I couldn't tell you where this is supposed to be. A redirect is still better than an article about a village that doesn't exist though, so I'll take that as a win. There has also been a tendency locally for new housing estates to be named "[Existing Village] Common" so maybe it will become a real place in the future? FOARP (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not a new housing estate. It's an old common that's in the Victoria History under Wickham. Uncle G (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          There may be a housing estate there at some point (see also nearby Titchfield Common which now qualifies as a ward for local elections etc.) FOARP (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its on the OS but not as a settlement, that probably means it doesn't pass GEOLAND if its not an OS settlement but even if it was its debated if OS settlements qualify as legally recognized. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        It is both a settlement and a common on the online OS mapping [25] Rupples (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All I see in the OS viewer is a name that disappears if I try to zoom in on the area, so I don't see how it can be cited to justify this assertion. Mangoe (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe From OS mapping Wickham Common is a settlement. Note the names in brown lettering tie in with settlements represented by hamlets/villages/towns etc elsewhere on the map, whereas the common (a geographical feature) is in green lettering, like woodland. I assure you that on the OS database, available for free download here [26] Wickham Common is a "populated place, hamlet". Took me awhile to find the correct CSV spreadsheet, but if you want to download and check it out, it's under SU40, row 72. Rupples (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but Wickham Common isn’t a settlement in real life, so this is your classic example example of why we shouldn’t take what these all-inclusive sources say at face value without any corroboration from any other source. FOARP (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Isn't a settlement in real life". Evidence points to the opposite. Royal Mail has postal addresses for Wickham Common with postcode PO17 5DN, which corroborates the OS. Rupples (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
…which is at a different location to Wickham Common, which shows again what the problem with saying “look, there must be a village there!” based on sources like these. FOARP (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a) No-one has claimed it's a village — it's a hamlet. b) Don't know what mapping you're looking at (Google maps at a guess, which is unreliable in this instance), but current OS mapping positioning of Wickham Common ties in with the Royal Mail addresses on and around Forest Lane. Further, Google Streetview clearly shows a number of residences. I do acknowlege it's not legally recognised by Winchester District Council under that name and so doesn't fulfil WP:GEOLAND requirements for a separate article, but a redirect is appropriate and in line with policy, which by your previous comments you have accepted as an AtD. Rupples (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"No-one has claimed it's a village" - the article states that. Forest Lane isn't on the common, and my source for that is I live here. FOARP (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant no-one in this discussion has claimed it's a village. Rupples (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Several things: first, when I'm looking at GMaps, I'm using the coordinates given in the article. Outside China, I've never seen the slightest unreliability in that: back in the days when I was doing lighthouse articles, using the coordinates from the Light List and plugging them into GMaps resulted in a dot directly on the lantern. My assumption is that the article coordinates came from the OS service, as is generally the case with geostubs. I don't know whether OS has the GNIS problem of showing the location of the map label, but in any case that only makes he matter worse if the accuracy is better.
Second, as far as WP notability is concerned, it matters not whether a place is termed a village or a hamlet.
Third, using the label color on an online service is just not going to cut it as an authority as far as I'm concerned. For one thing, I'm unaware of what the color is for a "common"; but also this is the classification problem that is at the heart of the unreliabilities in GNIS. No doubt the Brits did a better job than us rude colonials, but still, relying on that classification as the sole authority for the nature of a place is not good enough. Likewise, the postal services are about delivering mail, not establishing geography. Mangoe (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. I agree GMaps is usually accurate, but not 100%. GMaps is not 'original' mapping. I'd have thought the data originally derived from national mapping agencies, but don't know whether it utilises up-to-date OS data. It's part updated by trusted users (aka local guides) and then reviewed by Google prior to publishing changes. The co-ordinates in the article are likely based from GMaps. I've reviewed historic mapping and it's uncertain whether the OS are referring to the common or a settlement as there is just the single Wickham Common named, but it does look more likely to refer to the common. Google Maps and ESRi are using different co-ordinates for Wickham Common to the OS. Perhaps the OS have recently catagorised Wickham Common as a settlement and moved its mapped location?
2. Agree.
3. Yes, that's your prerogative. I base my assessment that Wickham Common is a settlement on the OS data & mapping, the housing, named road and Royal Mail addresses. Against this, it seems not to be legally recognised by Winchester District Council and there's no signage. So I'm not saying it's 100%, and it could depend on one's interpretation of what constitutes a settlement. I've taken the view it is, but if enough editors disagree then I'll happily concede. Rupples (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One further point. Wickham Common is named as the place of abode for people mentioned in local newspapers reports from at least 1889 onwards, per a British Newspaper Archive search. Rupples (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing to be merged, re-direct not necessary, especially since the Common is not mentioned in the proposed target page. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've added a civil parish heading to Wickham so the redirect can now go to the more precise target of Wickham, Hampshire#Wickham and Knowle civil parish, where the common is now mentioned. Guess User:FOARP might not approve if I started a separate article for the parish with little to say:) Rupples (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes these things surprise one, especially if one looks for history and archaeology. Not in this case, however. The sum total of those in this case is a 1 sentence mention in the Victoria History ("Wickham Common, about 20 acres in extent, is a mile from the village on the Southwick Road.") and an aside about pottery finds in a report on an archaeological dig somewhere else. It's a common. It is, or was when the Victoria History was written, apparently a mile from the nearest village. It is documented under Wickham, Hampshire in the Victoria History, so the redirect seems perfectly in line with what the world has documented. Uncle G (talk) 17:56, 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 Mikowice, Opole Voivodeship. Should someone think some part of the content is worth merging, it can be merged from behind the redirect as the history has been preserved. Daniel (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pod Jedlinką[edit]

Pod Jedlinką (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)

Mass-created article by Kotbot, a bot operated by retired user Kotniski.

As it says on the PL Wiki article, this is an "unofficial settlement" (nieoficjalna osada). This is not listed on the TERYT database (despite the TERYT database being listed as the source...), or at least there is no SIMC ID that would allow you to search that database for it. There isn't any place called Pod Jedlinką listed on the Polish regulation of place-names, which in every case I've checked so far had the same data as TERYT.

From the over-head satellite pictures it appears this is just an empty field near the hamlet (przysiółek) of Winniki, Opole Voivodeship, which is itself just a part of the village of Mikowice, Opole Voivodeship and so borderline as an article itself.

Fails WP:GEOLAND since there is no legal recognition. Also fails WP:V since every source that might confirm the existence of this place comes up negative. Even if it were to somehow be confirmed, this is just a part of the village of Mikowice and we have nothing to say about it, so WP:NOPAGE would apply.

TL;DR - fails verification, GEOLAND, WP:NOPAGE. FOARP (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and merge per Piotrus, Non-notable (at best).
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've changed the co-ordinates to those specified in the names database here [27]. It now ties in with the OSM place name at [28]. Appears to be one or two dwellings at the end of the road/track from Winniki. Rupples (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am OK with redirection to Mikowice, Opole Voivodeship. I don't understand what we are supposed to be merging here since we have - at best - only a feature name with no detail of what it's supposed to be. FOARP (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Tend to agree with you. Unless something else turns up, all that needs to be said on the Mikowicw page if it is confirmed Pod Jedynką is a hamlet is how far and in what direction Pod Jedynką is from Mikowicw, not what's currently in the article. I'm unsure what the database entry means, since I don't understand Polish — just saw the name and co-ordinates. Perhaps @Piotrus would take a look at the headings in the spreadsheet to ascertain the meaning? (Pod Jedynką is on row 62981). Rupples (talk) 13:45, 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 keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ljungby Arena[edit]

Ljungby Arena (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 independent refs on the page for a long time. It's an area for a third level ice hockey team. At best should be a merge with IF Troja-Ljungby JMWt (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - IF Troja Ljungby was recently a member of the second level HockeyAllsvenskan, which receives significant coverage in the Swedish media. --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 22:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The arena appears to meet GNG based on the sources in its Swedish language [29] article on Wikipedia. Flibirigit (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this covers WP:GNG based on sources.BabbaQ (talk) 22:06, 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 redirect‎ to Tilden, Texas. Daniel (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Star Camp[edit]

Lone Star Camp (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 on the page is verified, very little to suggest notability. At best this needs WP:TNT to be rewritten only with information that can be properly verified with independent RS. But for me it needs to be an entry in a list - perhaps List of Texas State Historic Sites JMWt (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Redirect to Tilden, Texas - Maybe it existed in 2007 when the article was written, but not now. Using "lone star camp" as the key words, I ran this though the Texas Historic Sites Atlas". It returned 1083 results, but nothing by that name in all of Texas. This atlas is comprised of records from the State of Texas. If it's not on this list, it's likely it does not exist. — Maile (talk) 20:32, 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 12:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King of Gozo[edit]

King of Gozo (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)

Original research by synthesis. Ther's no mention of a kingdom of Gozo in any of the citations listed in the article. They just say the King of Sicily ruled the island. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Gozitan Nation. You could say that the King of Sicily (Ferdinand I) was also the "King of Gozo" for 3 years. Alternately, you could say there was no "Kingdom of Gozo" and that Gozo was just part of the Kingdom of Sicily. Either way, Ferdinand was a disengaged ruler preoccupied with the French and only became King because the 16,000 people on this little Mediterranean island asked him to be their King after throwing out the French. They weren't Sicilians. A local priest actually ran the island.
It's as if the people of Mayberry, North Carolina decided they'd better have a king. That's about how big an operation the Gozitan Nation nation was.
If someone looks for the "King of Gozo", a redirect will get them to the right place.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wasn't aware of this article or discussion before. The creator just created King of the Gozitan Nation, a duplicate of this one, which I redirected to the Gozitan Nation article. If the conclusion of this AfD is "delete", that one should be deleted as well. Fram (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- There is little or nothing that is not in Gozitan Nation article. See further my remarks under Queen Consort of Gozo
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queen consort of Gozo[edit]

Queen consort of Gozo (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)

Original research by synthesis, or a hoax. There is no mention of a queen consort of Gozo in any of the citations listed in the article. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No evidence of usage anywhere. Google searches for "Queen consort of Gozo" return only Wikipedia results and a post on Reddit regarding AfD. --estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be a made up term not backed by historical evidence. Keivan.fTalk 04:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ferdinand III of Sicily was nominally the King of the island of Gozo (a.k.a. the Gozitan Nation), next to the island of Malta. The island of Gozo was part of the nation of Malta except for 3 years. This period was after the islanders rebelled against French occupation under a local priest, Saverio Cassar. They asked Ferdinand to be their king; Cassar ran the island as "governor general". During these three years, Ferdinand's wife would have been the the Queen Consort.
This article gives a brief history of this time but does not mention a queen consort.
I've never seen this before. It's safe to say that Wikipedia is not a repository for articles that don't say anything about their subjects.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nothing in the article relates to the title. PamD 07:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurpose (or merge) -- The content is about the History of Gozo 1798-1800s. This is closely related to Siege of Malta (1798–1800), which recounts the history from the POV of British naval and colonial history. This article adds detail, but there is only a passing mention of Ferdinand III and none at all of his wife except in the lead. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- It is possible there is something to merge to Gozitan Nation (preferably renamed as Gozo (1798-1800) or with slightly later end date, but most of the content is already there, so that it is the appropriate merge target. Ferdinand's role is unlikely to have been more than nominal: he was asked to become king, but he probably did little. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 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 merge‎ to Carnival Games. Daniel (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Carnival Games[edit]

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

No independent RS on the page for many years. Not all Wii games are notable. JMWt (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Per WP:NEXIST. It has a preview from IGN, and a review from Gameplanet and Common Sense Media. It also got a review from Gameshark, which remains inconclusively reliable but not explicitly unreliable. The DS version has a review from Official Nintendo Magazine UK, but I am deliberately not counting that one since it's a different version. Even then, it squeaks past the line of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's not really any content here. Even if it *is* notable, nothing would be lost by redirecting to Cat_Daddy_Games. ApLundell (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects imply to typical users that the article isn't notable and will never be. That's why I think keeping stubs around is important, even if there's a very low but not zero chance it will be improved. Per WP:MAKESTUBS it will signal the article is there and needs expansion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Carnival Games It has enough press, but the main game's article has enough meat where merging this in makes sense, much more than just throwing a redirect on the page to the studio that isn't helpful to anyone (and loses all the text we have here now). Nate • (chatter) 01:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Carnival Games As Nate said above, adding a sentence or two to Carnival Games about the new features in this version and taking its infobox (without the non-free cover art) would be good. If we redirect the article, it might be better to redirect to Carnival Games or Carnival Games#Sequels. QuietCicada - Talk 01:32, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Annh07 (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Elliott[edit]

Lucy Elliott (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:NACTOR. Streaming work is not notable. A WP:BEFORE found nothing better. The creator removed the PROD nomination but did not add any useful content or references. Annh07 (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete' - This emerging actor does not meet notability criteria for WP:NACTOR nor WP:GNG. An online search reveals user-submitted content, primary sources and social media, but I was unable to find SIGCOV. Netherzone (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my !vote to Keep - altho it is a weak K**p. This change is based on Chocmilk03's improvements per WP:HEY. It's a weak keep because she does not meet NACTOR, however with the improvements she does meet GNG, altho the sources seem more like human interest stories and some are primary sources (interviews) rather than serious analyses of her work itself. Netherzone (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: More than enough coverage in NZ media [30], [31] which is probably the best, then [32] and this for fun [33] Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your help in finding additional sources. I have not found any sources that write in-depth about her work or roles in the movies she has participated in. The sources you have provided are just side stories about life, I think that's not enough. She is described as an actress but there are no articles about her acting work. In addition, she has only participated in 2-3 movies. Annh07 (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Oaktree b, I respect your work on AfDs very much, and thanks for finding those sources. Is Stuff considered a reliable source? It seems a bit tabloid-like, but I'm not really familiar with it. Netherzone (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the New Zealand Stuff, I think it is, but I don't see it in the RS list [34]. Seems to be unrelated to the Maxim one we used to see here in North America, almost like a People magazine. I'll keep looking for sources. Oaktree b (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ungh, I wondered when I'd run into this "Some results may have been delisted consistent with local laws." Canada and it seems New Zealand have fought with media aggregators over hosting news, so some have pulled coverage here (facebook doesn't allow Canadian news to be displayed, I guess Google has gotten in on the fun now). This was in NZ Woman's Day [35]. Should at at least be a weak keep with the two newspapers and these other sources. The Woman's Day piece doesn't seem sensational and has a by-line, it's a rather frank talk about her fight with depression. Oaktree b (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netherzone and @Oaktree b, for what it's worth, and very much despite the name, Stuff is one of New Zealand's two major well-established news websites (the other being The New Zealand Herald; I would consider them equally reliable). It is absolutely a reliable source, but subject to the guidance at WP:RSEDITORIAL about checking individual articles on a case-by-case basis (e.g. it reprints content from news agencies without checking accuracy, and human interest reporting isn't as reliable). Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, good to know! Netherzone (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: IMDB says she was in 57 episodes of Shortland Street, which is a soap opera, that would probably pass the notability requirements for actors, I think. Oaktree b (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked the Shortland Street cast list, there are 7 people who have acted in more than 1000 episodes and more than 100 people who have acted in more than 100 episodes, which is a huge difference compared to Lucy Elliott's role. In addition, IMDB is not a reliable source (WP:IMDB), we cannot rely entirely on it. Annh07 (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more just the fact that it confirms she's an actress, we already have confirmation of her role in the articles above, that just adds colour to it. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm doubtful if that is enough to meet WP:NACTOR, the criteria states: Such a person may be considered notable if: 1. The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or 2. The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. It would be helpful if we knew whether her role in Shortland Street was major or minor. If it was a major role, then that would count towards criteria #1, however the requirement is multiple notable productions. Netherzone (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've worked through the sources as part of expanding the article, and though it's borderline, I think I'd err on the side of keep. Shortland Street is probably New Zealand's most notable television show and the amount of coverage demonstrates that her role was significant. She doesn't quite meet WP:NACTOR (which requires significant roles in multiple notable productions), but failure to meet this criteria is not conclusive. She does meet WP:GNG. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:41, 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 no consensus‎. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gerardo J. Meléndez-Torres[edit]

Gerardo J. Meléndez-Torres (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 substantial coverage from reliable sources and does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The sources cited are either primary or press-releases. The two scholarships mentioned in the text are similar to other postgrad scholarship like Fulbright scholarship or Chevening Scholarships, and they are not notable FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FuzzyMagma: please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#General_notes and its relationship to WP policy before commenting on discussions about academics. Here, Google Scholar is the reliable and independent source that would indicate whether the subject passes WP:NPROF#1 or not. Also a quick analysis on GS shows that he is one of the top 50 most-cited scholars in his field which would clearly argue in favor of NPROF#1. --hroest 20:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate a link for the GS on being top 50 in “his field “ that you mentioned. And I am familiar with the policy you cited. Nothing their support your claim about citations or notability FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to your link and scroll through the next couple of pages you find the subject on page 4, within the top 50 people in his field. Granted, the field is relatively narrow but I wanted to add that fact as context to your point about the 375k citations, since they fall of pretty rapidly and reach 8k and the level of this subject at around rank 50. To your second point The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. this can be satisfied by a research profile in GS if sufficient citations are found. And decidedly no, this is not like any other BLP and significant coverage from independent and reliable sources is not key. Key is whether he passes NPROF. Again, please read WP:NPROF in detail. --hroest 14:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think anyone who has played with changing these keywords knows that their rankings are easy to game, either deliberately or by happenstance, by (1) choosing a narrow subfield, (2) using a less-common variant of the name of the subfield, or (3) working in two fields with different levels of citation, having many citations in the higher-citation field, and listing the lower-citation field as another of your keywords. I don't think they mean much. That said, appearing on page 4 rather than page 1 is evidence that they were not trying to game the system. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, England, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A very large number of co-authors in a well cited and popular field. Not one single-author publication. Despite the large number of cites I am not sure that an outstanding reputation is established yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment, leaning Keep. Agree it's a high citation field, and that all the publications are co-authored, but the GS profile still looks pretty healthy to me -- top citations 1012,643,299,296,294, plus four more >200 and ten more >100. Holds a personal chair. Also various fellowships listed here [38] might merit assessment. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I did a spot check for all of the refs, only 1 checks out and another that is primary. The fellowships listed in his own website:
  • Fellow of the American Academy of Nursing: there is approximately 2,900 fellow and the fellowship is awarded per application and paid fees. Not sure if I would call it highly selective fellowships (WP:NPROF)
  • Fellow of the Faculty of Public Health: this is the UK equivalent from the previous fellowship. Same fees and application cycle
and for what is worth I could not verify any of the fellowships so I stopped. Not to reiterate my previous point by I could not find any coverage about this person beyond what he wrote himself which I could not verify FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Overall very healthy citation record with 19 papers with 100+ citations, especially for such a junior researcher. I dont see an argument for NPROF per fellowship / awards as these are all early career or not very selective but I see an argument per WP:NPROF#1 based on the publication record. I agree with the overall assessment that many of these are collaborative but it is not up to Wikipedia to decide what merits being listed as a co-author and what his exact contribution was to each paper. --hroest 20:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont see an argument for NPROF per fellowship / awards as these are all early career. Since we are talking about early career awards and fellowships in the UK, there are the Royal Society University Research Fellowship and Future Leaders Fellowships. These are actually prestigious and competitive fellowships. The NHS also awards different prestigious prizes. And if he is earlier carer and not yet well established then this is WP:TOOSOON
    I’m truly baffled by the current discussion where editors are basing their opinion on citations which are very low for this discipline (norm is in 100k), and fellows/awards that are only found in primary sources contradicting WP:BLPPRIMARY and self published sources FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify where you got your statement norm is in 100k from (with regards for your expectation of the number of citation). While its a highly cited field I dont see any indication that this is the "norm". My point with regards to the awards is early career awards generally dont count towards NPROF even if they are highly selective. We are looking for awards that would be highly selective for fully established researchers. Finally, which editor based their vote in fellows/awards that are only found in primary sources - I cannot find a single one in the list of votes here? --hroest 14:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are so many coauthors on his papers that I do not see evidence that the subject has made a significant contribution to the field by himself and he has not yet demonstrated independent achievement. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep: And improve. His Department CV is far more impactful than this page, with two society fellow awards. I do not understand some of the comments about h-factors etc:
His h-factor at 40 is very high and shows a major upwards trend, and a number of 38 since 2018 is notable.
The number of co-authors is not relevant except for the 100 author groups. These comments are not appropriate IMHO.
He was elected FAAN in 2020, one of 4 in the UK. This is notable, it is an American organization and getting elected internationally is way harder than within a country.
He is a chaired Professor

Ldm1954 (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the above editors' analyses of his publishing history. Not quite notable - TOOSOON.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - not sure what the argument is here. He's a full professor at the University of Exeter - which is in the Russell Group of the top research institutions in the UK. That alone appears to satisfy point 5 of NPROF. Add in the research impact, awards and membership of selective academic orgs, I think there is no doubt that NPROF is met. If he is not considered notable, the problem is with NPROF and not with whether he meets the criteria. JMWt (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just being a professor, not even at Harvard, has never satisfied WP:Prof#C5 by itself. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Again, then, the problem is with NPROF which states clearly "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable" JMWt (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just being a professor is not one of the following conditions. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Criteria 5 says "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon."
This describes exactly the position of Full Professor at the University of Exeter. He's a named chair appointed Professor. JMWt (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A minor clarification -- Professor in the US and UK are different. In the US the ranks are Assistant, Associate, Professor, Chaired Professor. In the UK a Professor is equivalent to a US Chaired Professor. In his CV it states "personal Chair", which means that it has no specific name, but is a distinguished chair so does meet Criteria 5. (In the US Chairs always have names.) Ldm1954 (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you know, but in case anyone else is in any doubt, here is the link to the academic pathway for the University of Exeter [39]. Professor is the highest rank and is only given to those who meet the criteria of leadership and research quality. Which will be high for a UK Russell Group institution. JMWt (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The cases for WP:PROF #C1 and #C5 have been much debated above, and are suggestive but to me not definitive. The society fellowships discussed above also do not appear to be enough for #C3. I think the UK Young Academy [40] (junior branch of Royal Society) is borderline for #C3 but much stronger than those two fellowships. It, together with the citation evidence (but not the dubious claims that full professorships at top UK universities are somehow better than full professorships at top US universities) pushes me to the keep side of the fence. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 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. ✗plicit 12:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Crazy[edit]

Mr. Crazy (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)

Disputed PROD. Subject doens't appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO, sources are either primary, unreliable. There isn't a WP:SIGCOV also. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty straightforward, per VDWF. Just a quick comment, I couldn't find the aforementioned PROD. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish) 13:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This [41] and this [42] don't quite pass criminal notability guidelines here, career as a musician appears non-notable as well. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The sources don’t meet their guidelines for reliable sources, and the musician’s not notable. HarukaAmaranth 春香 20:15, 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. Daniel (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lbenj[edit]

Lbenj (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)

Disputed PROD. Subject doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO, sources are either primary, unreliable. There isn't a WP:SIGCOV also. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Morocco. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources are pretty unreliable, and also none are in English. Large parts of the article are also unsourced. HarukaAmaranth 春香 20:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    English-language sources are preferred, but foreign language sources are allowed, per WP:NONENG. Mooonswimmer 15:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources are PR/SEO sites like welovebuzz and/or interviews/his statements so not independent or trivial coverage. S0091 (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Mooonswimmer for the additional information which prompted me to do some more digging and found he was nominated for an All Africa Music Award (source) and this Haaretz article which states he is "at the top of many Arab countries charts". Granted "charts" is vague but between what you provided and this, it gets me over the hump to Keep. S0091 (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also found ProQuest 1961800094 (Al Bayane) about the Morocco Music Awards for which Lbenj was nominated and explains sales and downloads figures do not exist for Morocco and states "the nominated artists come from the top broadcasts of Moroccan music on the three associated radios (Chada FM, Hit Radio and Radio 2M) during the year 2017, for the following categories: Rap/Hip Hop/Rnb, modern song, Pop, Fusion-Rock, popular music/RAI, Pop-Dance and the new feature of this edition." (translated from French via ProQuest), thus meeting at least WP:NMUSIC #11. S0091 (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Vanderwaalforces and @HarukaAmaranth for their consideration of these additional findings. S0091 (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @S0091 Thank you for doing these findings. I am now satisfied a bit as some criteria has been met. I will lean to weak keep. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Lbenj is a very well-known rapper in Morocco and is one of the the country's most prominent representatives of rap. In 2019, he performed at Mawazine Festival (source), which has been described as the largest and most important music festival in Africa by Billboard. In 2023, he performed at Rab'Africa. Le360 and H24 Info (1, 2) are well-known online publications in Morocco, with editorial teams and no apparent sponsored content. Admittedly, despite being one of the most well-known and widely streamed rappers in the country, there isn't much decent significant coverage in mainstream publications and I can't find a national music chart for Morocco, so it looks like building a case for notability by our standards may be prove to be difficult.
Edit: Nominated for significant All Africa Music Award, performed at Africa's largest festival, placed in rotation nationally by top broadcasts of Moroccan music, and has received some non-trivial, independent coverage. Certainly passes WP:MUSICBIO. Great work on the research, @S0091:. Mooonswimmer 12:13, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Badr Rhazi[edit]

Badr Rhazi (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)

Initially moved to draftspace but returned back to mainspace by creator. Subject doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Sources, which include YouTube, are unreliable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unfortunate the editor opposed draftify. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish) 13:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I guess none of the sources provided in this article are reliable. HarukaAmaranth 春香 20:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Famous content creator and chef, but doesn't meet WP:BASIC. Mooonswimmer 18:49, 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 merge‎ to Avian Island. Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skeen Rocks[edit]

Skeen Rocks (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 on the page shows notability. Geographical features that appear on maps are not necessarily notable and WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No indication of notability, appears to be an extremely minor feature. –dlthewave ☎ 12:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A geographic feature that wasn't even named until 1963 is probably not significant, and with no sourcing, WP:NOTEVERYTHING indeed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Merged it into Avian Island, worth a mention.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Avian Island. The information on coordinates and name origin can be held there, in line with WP:GEONATURAL. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Avian Island. This is easy for the closing admin: Dr. Blofeld has already added the info to the Avian Island article. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Avian Island per Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), which says "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river." Espresso Addict (talk) 20:56, 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! 06:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters and Critics[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Monsters and Critics (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 december 2020. ltbdl (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Entertainment. ltbdl (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It may have been notable in 2010 (and reading through that nom is an exercise in 'why did we keep this'), but it's now yet another churnalism site which manipulates social media and news aggregators to post low-quality 'Why did thing happen in media? Overexplain the thing with SEO words/paragraphs meant for ginger cats who currently don't have the brain cell', and it no longer covers its subject area, as its current specialty seems to be crap like this, which makes the reader think we don't know who Shaft was and that Whoopi Goldberg was somehow offensive for mentioning his catchphrase this morning. We may have cited it in the past as the article claims, but we certainly aren't for unexpectional soap pre-emptions now. Nate • (chatter) 01:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm allowed to disagree with the original two closes and document that it had been devoted to actual criticism and news at one time, but was purchased by a clickbait purveyor in 2017 and its trust and N has severely declined since then; whatever trust it had in the past has declined in the same way Comic Book Resources has, for goldfish recaps of The View and Real Housewives. Finally, the 'lot of work' that was promised by a keep vote in 2010 was never done, and we've tightened up since then, and whatever good content they had in the past is hard to find purposefully. Nate • (chatter) 18:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • MrSchimpf, your arguments are fine to argue why you think it's a bad source, but they say nothing about notability. its trust and N has severely declined since then Its notability has not declined since then, because notability is not temporary. It can't decline. In this particular case, Monsters and Critics was probably never notable to begin with, at least not by the current standards for notability. But crappiness, or being disgusting clickbait yada yada yada, regardless of how bad something is, does not affect notability. Yes, you're allowed to document that in your opinion this source went down the drain, but it's not relevant in AfD. It would be relevant on WP:RSN, though. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The cited sources vaguely mentioned the site (little to no SIGCOV from reliable sources), one of the citations is from the website itself (one non-independent source), and last, but not least, a Google Search with the "News" and "All" filters give nothing but most of the website's tabloid articles. — Davest3r08 (^_^) (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Various sources have referenced Monsters and Critics. Not just The New York Times,[1] Los Angeles Times,[2] and BBC News[3] as mentioned in the article, also The Washington Post, ABC News, The Mary Sue (The Mary Sue), CinemaBlend (CinemaBlend), International Business Times (International Business Times) have referenced Monsters and Critics. I found these by searching Google News for "Monsters and Critics" in the time period 2000-2012. But none of these actually cover Monsters and Critics itself, and a search for the name of either founder + "Monsters and Critics" yielded little more than Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks and social media. If reliable sources that actually cover Monsters and Critics itself can be found my vote should be considered invalid, but right now I don't see any.
    In previous deletion discussions it has been said that being referenced frequently makes the site influential and therefore notable. While on a personal level I generally tend to agree we should give considerable weight to such things, there's a major problem here: we can't write an unbiased or balanced article about Monsters and Critics because no sources to support any statement are known to exist, so all we can really do is stating some uncontroversial facts using primary sources. That's not enough for an article. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cowles, Gregory (October 16, 2008). "The Plot Thins". The New York Times. Retrieved April 20, 2014.
  2. ^ de Turenne, Veronique (March 11, 2008). "Today in Britney: piecing together the story". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 20, 2014.
  3. ^ Russell, Jamie (September 21, 2004). "High Noon - 21st September 2004". BBC News. Retrieved April 20, 2014.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G11 Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SATDD[edit]

SATDD (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)

Complete lack of notability, created by editor who invented this and seems to be only interested in self-promotion. Best source for this is Linkedin[43], most of the few other hits for this are unrelated. Article doesn't technically meet any of the speedy criteria, so AfD it is. Fram (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure we're looking at the same article: SATDD is completely unsourced since creation. The version created yesterday by same editor was sourced only by a post from creator's LinkedIn (and largely copied from it). That LinkedIn post seems to have been taken down now. Wikishovel (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Beg pardon. There are no sources in this iteration. Previous iterations were sourced to creator's LinkedIn and their blog.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikishovel: Yeah, I called them on sourcing to LinkedIn on the penultimate iteration.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Failed to ping. Ping!-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Delete based on the lack of sourcing; to be honest, I'm still not sure what "thing" this talks about so I'm not able to properly pull up sources. This could be a redirect to another subject, ok with that option. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 02:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet inclusion requirements, despite creators valiant efforts to promote the thing. The article is some sort of essay. The article is webhosty, but let's let it ride. The creator has added a source that looks like a mirror of the article on Wikipedia. (No a copyvio. Wikipedia is the source for the source.) It would be best for others to review the added source on their own. (Late to the party cause I thought I had speedy deleted an iteration of this and did not want to take a second bite at the apple. It was the auto bio and multi redirects to the auto bio I had deleted.)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Noting this was WP:G11'd by @Jimfbleak:.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:26, 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 convert to index‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sagoo[edit]

Sagoo (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 notability of this topic is very doubtful. The only cited source lists "saggu" among two dozen other sub-groups of the Ramgarhia sikhs, with no further detail. The external links provide no information about this topic that I can see, and I am unable to find any reliable sources covering the topic. I see no support in RS for the interchangeability with "sagoo", nor do I see any evidence that people with this surname actually belong to this clan. The single piece of sourced info is logically covered in the Ramgarhia article. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or convert to a surname page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to a surname page as WP:ATD; if deleted a new surname page would be created. Peter James (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Deletion and Converting to a surname page. As an aside, I do not know what is involved is such a conversion so if the consensus goes that way, I will leave it to another admin to close this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — no comments since the previous one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:59, 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 XM Satellite Radio channel history#Channel mergers (ATD). Daniel (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The City (XM)[edit]

The City (XM) (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)

Completely unsourced article that seemingly fails the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 04:18, 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 Pat Robertson. Daniel (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Washington News Desk[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG due to a complete lack of sources showing this network even existed. If sources can be found to prove existence, I'm open to a redirect and/or merge to Pat Robinson. Let'srun (talk) 04:08, 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 redirect‎ to WKHM (AM) (ATD). Daniel (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Radio Works[edit]

Jackson Radio Works (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)

Besides some reports of the company selling its stations [[44]] and some passing mentions, I'm not finding much secondary coverage about this radio broadcasting company to satisfy the GNG. Let'srun (talk) 04:02, 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 XM Satellite Radio channel history#Channel mergers. Daniel (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Visions[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a defunct satellite radio station. Perhaps redirect this to XM Satellite Radio channel history? Let'srun (talk) 03:44, 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 02:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Qabatiya and Tammun raids[edit]

2023 Qabatiya and Tammun raids (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)

Clear failure of WP:NOTNEWS. The only coverage of this is in the Palestinian Authority's state-run wire service Wafa, then a one-bullet mention in an Al Jazeera round-up of dozens of developments in the 2023 Hamas-Israel war. Unlikely to be sustained or widespread coverage. Longhornsg (talk) 03:05, 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 01:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby-Man Brant Panag[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bobby-Man Brant Panag (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 to meet notably guideline. No credible importance. Sources are limited and provide no detail on the subject. AmericanHistorian (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The cited book source does not seem to mention this person, and the other source looks like it would be coverage from a local paper. I can't find a single mention of them online that isn't sourced from Wikipedia. Jfire (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Jfire's assessment. My search found no significant independent coverage of the subject, no mention in the book's table of contents/topics, and I couldn't access the local paper's story of the fight. He also fails to meet WP:NBOX. WP notability is not obtained by opponents fought, especially when the fight against Camel was over a year before boxrec shows Camel's first pro fight (and 8 years before Camel won a world title). Papaursa (talk) 17:31, 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. Editors who know about "set indexes" can see about converting this article into one. Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Botanical & Zoological Garden[edit]

Botanical & Zoological Garden (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 disambiguation page is a partial title match. For many years, the first example given at WP:PTM has been a zoo. Most the entries in the disambiguation page have Zoo(logical) before Botanical rather than after. The disambiguation page was recently created following Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_3#Botanical_&_Zoological_Garden. Plantdrew (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • List of botanical gardens and List of zoos probably cover this, can someone go through the list and check? We could create a convenience redirect List of zoological gardens to cover any searches a bit better. --Joy (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clarifying that it also includes entities titled in the other order, "Zoological and Botanical Garden(s)". Not all of these entities are existing zoos, or botanical gardens - hence Leeds Zoological and Botanical Gardens, which closed in 1858, is not included in List of zoological gardens and aquariums in United Kingdom but is a valid entry in this disambiguation page. PamD 07:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @PamD is there a reason not to add a former place to that list? There's nothing there that actually says 'currently in existence'. --Joy (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joy I think many lists are taken to be "current only" and to exclude former establishments: I know I tried to add a couple of closed colleges school to a list of schools in a county and they were removed with comment "This list for current, active and open institutions only" although no mention of such in the list itself! Some have a separate list for "former ...", but not all. PamD 15:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it makes sense to just have it at the bottom under a separate heading? --Joy (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to a set index. This is not properly a disambiguation page as none of the entries are known as simply 'Botanical & Zoological Garden' or variations thereof. While the listing comes close to being afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but as the Leeds example suggests, such a listing may be a helpful index. older ≠ wiser 10:23, 13 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! 02:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and convert to a set index, per Bkonrad. Useful as a list of things so described, but not as a list of ambiguous uses of a specific phrase. BD2412 T 02:52, 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 01:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger (2007 film)[edit]

Tiger (2007 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find a single reliable source in English or Bengali (টাইগার 2007 মিঠুন). A Google search of Mithun Tiger brings up this [45], which is not about the film. DareshMohan (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the film appears to be on online, available on Youtube. Much of the film cast is listed as well. Still - no source aside from IMDB is available. AmericanHistorian (talk) 02:59, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aawitin Ko Na Lang[edit]

Aawitin Ko Na Lang (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 additional citations since 2016. Passing mentions in GNews Archives like here. I can't verify which org gave it Gold Status. It's definitely not PARI. There's an Allmusic review but that's it. Alternatively, redirect to Ariel_Rivera#Albums. --Lenticel (talk) 01:32, 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! 01:38, 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 merge‎ to Joymax. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deco Online[edit]

Deco Online (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 non-notable MMO that has been tagged for a dozen years for sourcing problems, which has been disrupted by a promo LTA for years. WP:VG/S's reliable source search finds no coverage, but only press releases on GamesIndusty and IGN from 2008-09. Metacritic has no critic OR user reviews for the game. Mobygames (An unreliable WP:USERG directory, but useful for finding other reliable sources, magazines, etc) doesn't even have an entry for it. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT both. -- ferret (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Joymax per WP:ATD, as the article doesn't seem notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has long been closed, making it very unlikely any new sources will appear. I don't think a merge is advisable because I'm not particularly convinced that the publisher is notable either - at least not independently from their better known game. - MrOllie (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Joymax seems to be just 1 of several publishers the game bounced through. -- ferret (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being its English publisher and this being English Wikipedia it's still a believable target. If people think Joymax is also non-notable, they are free to nominate it for deletion as well, which will remove the redirect entirely if found to be so. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:46, 20 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! 01:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with a light merge to Joymax as WP:ATD. —siroχo 07:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As nominator, I can accept a redirect to Joymax, but I strongly recommend a Salting due to on going promotional efforts. During this AFD, yet another promo SPA has popped up claiming that no, THEY are the ones actually running the game now. There's numerous recreations/pirate servers of the game and multiple promo efforts targeting the article name. -- ferret (talk) 14:45, 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 speedy keep‎ (SK1/withdrawn). No prejudice against a merge, either boldly or as a merge discussion, but there is no longer any advocating for deletion. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IGDB[edit]

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

Doesn't appear notable outside Twitch acquisition. Was a draft that has been moved by creator. Recommend redirecting to Twitch (service). IgelRM (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, Websites, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Databas för spel tar in miljoner, 13 February 2018, in Dagens Industri, is a 500-word article in the dominating Swedish finance newspaper. There's a couple of paragraphs in "Mycket på spel i snabbväxande bransch", Göteborgs-Posten 24 January 2019 (pages 16–17), online as "Mycket på spel i snabbväxande Göteborgsbransch". There's also "Blev rik på sin galna get – nu investerar han i 'IMDB för spel'" in the Swedish news site Breakit, probably the dominating source of journalism aboout finance news about the tech sector in Sweden. I'm leaning towards keep, based on this and the sources already available in the article. /Julle (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the Swedish sources. Somewhat local startup coverage, but some details. Perhaps a merger with Twitch service would still make sense, but otherwise leaning keep.
    Dagens Industri says "world's largest database for computer games", I think MobyGames would claim that. "rawg.io" etc don't get that much local press, right? IgelRM (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't confirm if Göteborgs-Posten article is WP:SIGCOV but even without it, there's just enough with the 2 other Swedish sources and Twitch acquisition articles. --Mika1h (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mika1h: I realize this is the AFD venue, but may I ask your opinion about a merge after my above comment. I will withdraw the AFD if someone wants to switch to the article talk page.
    @Sulfurboy: (AFC reviewer in 2020), do the sources change your notability concern? IgelRM (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a merge. --Mika1h (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:IgelRM, you are the nominator and you say you are now leaning Keep. Do you want to withdraw this nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think the facts of the size of content of the database and the usage by Twitch and Amazon alone justify it for a article. If you insist that it fits better there, you could merge it as a section in "Twitch (service)". UnkreativeFrog (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC) (writer of "IGDB")[reply]
  • Keep - size of content and usage of Twitch etc do jusrify this article being kept. BabbaQ (talk) 22:08, 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Benade[edit]

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

The subject is a Namibian rugby player. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I am only seeing passing mentions in match reports, lineup changes, etc. 1, 2 and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is difficult to find information about domestic rugby in Namibia hence the shortness of the article. However Jason Benade has featured for the national side of Namibia numerous times including at the World Cup, the biggest stage in the sport. Curtis82 (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think there's enough here, if Namibian offline sourcing is included for a weak keep here, especially given he is featuring in a current World Cup. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:02, 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) 01:12, 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! 00:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep has featured in the World Cup multiple times as said above. It’s a matter of improving since there are multiple sources for the WC. I don’t know enough about the domestic leagues to say whether or not there is significant coverage there but there will be for the national side. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If these sources have in-depth coverage of the subject, I will happily withdraw the nomination. JTtheOG (talk) 19:20, 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 no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus in this discussion, editors are all over the map. That doesn't mean that editors can't work on a Merge or Redirect, it's just that that decision will not come out of this AFD discussion since there are a fair number of editors who are arguing to Keep this article. I suggest a talk page discussion before taking action. Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paper organization[edit]

Paper organization (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)

Hard to tell if this is correct as when I search for cites I just find stuff about how to organize papers Chidgk1 (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Front organization, a closely related topic. I could not find any coverage in reliable sources for "paper organization" in the sense described in this article. Cullen328 (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a stub for future elaboration and referencing. A paper organization can be a type of front, but it's not really a front for another group if it's just one or two people with a letterhead (or, these days, a web site). If @Carrite: were looking for some examples, he might look at the phantom armies in Military Deception or the imaginary spy rings in the Double Cross (XX) system in World War II, or. on the political side, the discussion of Farmer Labor politics in 1923-4 in Irving Howe's and Lewis Coser's The American Communist Party: a critical history (Praeger:1957, 1962) pp. 122-5; "... the Communists were wildly, furiously, joyously at work concocting a pile of paper organizations which would send compliant cardboard delegates to the Chicago convention." (followed in the same chapter by a listing of some of those organizations). @Rjensen: —— Shakescene (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice - there seems to be little or nothing to support this article, or to justify the proposed redirect. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or redirect or merge) - this can be useful, for example see First United States Army Group, a "paper army" from WWII. - wolf 02:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I suppose one might argue for deletion on DICTDEF grounds, although I believe the encyclopedia would be poorer for it. It should absolutely not be rendered a redirect to Front organization, however, as a front group may be a concrete organization or a fantasy group with little more than an executive and a letterhead. As is noted, there is a valid and different meaning for "paper organization" in a military context. Both of these use cases are important, major concepts and I really don't see how deletion would be anything but pedantic. Carrite (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — IAR. The encyclopedia is better with the page than without it. Carrite (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What does IAR mean please? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chidgk1 "IAR" refers to the policy, Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:07, 13 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! 23:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It it were still an option, Transwiki to Wiktionary. I think I've found sufficient information to create the term in Wiktionary, but not enough to support a Wikipedia article. See for instance, pg 57 of "Ambush Valley" (link, requires free registration). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've created a Wiktionary article at wikt:paper organization. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking like no consensus but let’s give it one more relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nagol0929 (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had a look around too, and I agree with Cullen328. There's just not a coherent concept that the world has documented, here. There are plenty of things listed as existing on paper only, but there's nothing anywhere that collects them and studies them as an actual single concept. Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Front organization. This is a closely related topic that is not independently notable. (Also glad to see User:Uncle G back!) Reywas92Talk 01:28, 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.

Ngõ 224 Lê Duẩn[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Đại Việt quốc (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Ngõ 224 Lê Duẩn (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 sure how to approach this. WP:GEOROAD seems to be useless, so does WP:GEOLAND. Even if kept, it should be renamed to something else, perhaps Hanoi Train Street, since the article is clearly mentioning the train street as a whole which is 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) in length, while this alley is just the a segment of it (south of the Hanoi Railway Station, 21°01′02″N 105°50′28″E / 21.017307788630127°N 105.84107098863252°E / 21.017307788630127; 105.84107098863252) and is less popular. The main segment of the train is the one north of the station, 21°01′49″N 105°50′39″E / 21.030257222877193°N 105.84425082143629°E / 21.030257222877193; 105.84425082143629 which crosses several streets: Điện Biên Phủ, Trần Phú, Phùng Hưng. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced to AfP and CNN, I'm not sure why it's being considered for deletion. I can pull up more RS. Oaktree b (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Please note that although it is called "Articles for deletion", that is not the only outcome. Other alternatives might be merging to another article, renaming, adding to it so that it becomes a broader subject... From my perspective, just by being a popular tourist destination is not sufficient enough to be notable, as it may violate WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTNEWS. And I think I mentioned above that even if it ends up being kept, it should be renamed, the title Ngõ 224 Lê Duẩn does not sound right, when the article content is about the whole Hanoi Train Street, whose main and most popular segment is at Ngõ 5 Trần Phú, 1.4 kilometres (0.87 mi) north of 224 Lê Duẩn. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here's an article from Time, from this past summer [46] and a local source [47]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Vietnam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename I've been here, a search for "hanoi train street" reveals countless news stories and articles over multiple years about the site, among the most popular in Hanoi. Seems obviously notable, but it doesn't take an AFD to rename or somewhat change its scope. Reywas92Talk 03:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG per Oaktree b's example sources. —siroχo 07:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Siroxo: But should it be renamed? I think I pointed out this issue and provided enough proof about the misleading title of the article? Đại Việt quốc (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think a rename probably makes sense. —siroχo 07:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep @Oaktree b, Reywas92, and Siroxo: From my prespective, just by re-emphasizing how unique or how popular the place is doesn't make it notable. I'm voting this because I found several Vietnamese sources that provides information about its history. Turns out the residents in this Train Street community were previously workers of... the state-owned railway companies, and their descendants. Even more surprising, it was the government that laid out this 'neighborhood' in the 1960s. The whole Train Street community is considered a microdistrict, known in Vietnamese as "khu tập thể". This type of neighborhood was very common during the years of planned economy, which is, no doubt, Soviet-inspired. The only reason why railway company workers were assigned here was due to... its proximity to their workplace. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't this just be a Move then, using the appropriate tools in Wiki? I'm not sure this is the correct forum for what you're proposing, but I could be mistaken. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b: Like I mentioned earlier, I only agreed to this after I found the additional sources about its history. Prior to that, my suggestion was to merge it into another article, like Hanoi railway station, or Hoàn Kiếm district (the district where the Train Street is located at). This is due to the confusion caused by the misleading title (which you didn't even recognize), and more importantly, the tone of the article itself sounds somewhat like a news piece and a travel guide, which violates WP:NOT. Given those, I think it was reasonable enough for me to bring it up here. But now, since more sources were found, I am more than happy to withdraw this, which I will do later. On the other hand, this article needs a complete rewrite, starting with a Move and a detail explanation of its location to avoid confusion. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 04:37, 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_October_25

Leave a Reply