THC Science

< September 26	September 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A-1 Auto Transport[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nearly all references are passing mentions of the business, press releases, or niche industry sources. Lacking the demonstrated notability required for corporations. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and California. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete via WP:G11, probably. Also something to note this article is mentioned (but not linked?) by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Webster (writer). This article, A-1 Auto, was (re-)created just half an hour before Webb's was created. Skynxnex (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:11, 30 September 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!} 02:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Harris[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBAD and WP:GNG as the only claim to notability is the participation at the World Championships which is not enough. Moreover, can't seem to find any credible source to establish notability. zoglophie 20:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and Canada. zoglophie 20:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is deleted, Lesley Harris (netball) should be moved to this page. A redirect from Lesley Harris (badminton) could also go to the page most useful to those looking for her, 1977 IBF World Championships – Women's singles. I thought when I created it being in a world chamionships was enough, but I haven't found anything to be able to dispute the comments above. Boleyn (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be fair, simply being present as a competitor in a world championship was considered an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself at the time this page was created — but sports notability standards have changed since then, so now she would have to be shown to pass WP:GNG. But the only footnote here glancingly acknowledges her existence while failing to be about her in any non-trivial way, which isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted, the sports notability guidelines have been modified and this article does not appear to qualify under GNG anymore. It should be deleted. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:06, 30 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

João Bruno[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC based on my searches and there is no obvious WP:ATD. I can't imagine that someone searching "João Bruno" would be necessarily looking for this footballer anyway, given that his career was so brief and contained few appearances. I can't find anything better than database sources, like Football Database, and SPORTBASIC explicitly states that such sources don't confer notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, his career makes my non-league football look good!, that's how bad this article is. Peace. Govvy (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corpulent Stump[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the 2007 news item I feel it’s not notable. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:11, 27 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mumin Aliyansyah[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of meeting WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. An Indonesian source search yields nothing better than the usual Wikipedia mirrors. Viva and Tribun News were the best sources that I could find but both of them only mention Mumin once and the depth is trivial. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scored one goal while playing in the third tier of Indonesian football. The article lacks any depth and fails to comply with WP:SPORTBASIC (prong 4) as it does not include any SIGCOV (just databases). Also, my searches turned up nothing that would constitute SIGCOV that might satisfy WP:GNG. Not finding a suitable redirect target, so deletion unfortunately appears to be the right result. Cbl62 (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sites are either stats databases or spambait sites with too many pop ups to be reliable. Nothing found for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 20:29, 3 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Peachey[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any significant coverage in reliable sources that are about the actress. She's been in a few well-known productions, but not in starring roles. -- Mike 🗩 19:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Mike 🗩 19:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to have moved to Broadway [1], but that's all I find for sourcing. Delete unless we can find a few more decent sources. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Fault in our Stars role she had appears to be a minor role also, likely not meeting ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe someday, but not enough significant RS news coverage to merit an article at this time. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:04, 30 September 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part W[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The cited references for this subject appear to be either interviews or write-ups in industry-specific journals. A quick preliminary check didn't appear to unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Architecture, and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are diverse, notable and independent sources, beyond industry-specific journals, that refer to the practice and demonstrate notability, for example: Financial Times, The Guardian, Architects' Journal. Disclosure: I was the reviewer when the article passed AfC review--AntientNestor (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets GNG. A publication being specific to an industry is not an adequate reason to discount it entirely. Folly Mox (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barker (advertising agency)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources fall short of WP:ORG; they are largely press releases or passing mentions at best. ~T PW 16:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ~T PW 16:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability as there is a lack of reputable coverage that directly addresses the company and its notability. GraziePrego (talk) 03:21, 3 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tetramind[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promo and cruft, with no independent material ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsalvageable promotional content. None of the references pass the quality bar being typical PR generated stuff. MarcGarver (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, India, and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rewrote the article, there's obviously little to no coverage for agencies, I contest, with its notable campaigns with Mattle & Sunrisers shows it. bɑʁɑqoxodaraP (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable company. After Paradoxodarap and Queen-ambi's cleanups, the remaining references are:
1. [2]: an article about social media and affiliate marketing for the hospitality industry, which mentions Tetramind only once to identify the speaker in a short quote. (WP:PASSINGMENTION)

[3]: the program of a youth conference which is used to support the finish results of a sailing team which the company sponsored. The company is not mentioned in the source at all.
[4]: reference cites a marketing campaign with a shoe brand and a cricket team; article is paywalled but the company doesn't appear to be mentioned at all.
[5]: article about a marketing campaign with a popular toy car brand. This article not only doesn't mention this agency, but mentions a different agency that the brand worked with. I'm not sure why this is used as a source at all.
[6] and [7] both refer to the agency winning a "Foxglove Award" in 2017, also for the Hot Wheels campaign mentioned above. The awards recognize young and small agencies in India, and indicates that Tetramind won one of the organization's "regional" awards, a step down from their "national" winners, and shared a silver medal in their category. There were roughly 100 of these awards given out in that year.

Googling just gives the usual business directory websites; no significant coverage whatsoever. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to Draft at this moment, a lot of these comments are seeming like a target on my back, I am moving this article back to draft and will later resubmit via AfC and let other admins decide it. Thank you everyone who took time on this. bɑʁɑqoxodaraP (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moving a page to avoid a deletion discussion is disruptive; I've reverted your move. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose draftification per my comment directly above. This is a topic which does not merit inclusion; no amount of work here or elsewhere will improve that. The draft namespace is not meant for indefinite storage of draft articles on non-notable topics. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Ivanvector. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as demonstrated by Ivanvector the sourcing fails to meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. While moving to Draft is an option if the author wishes to address the sourcing deficiencies, it is not for the purpose of avoiding AFD in the hope that "other admins" will allow the topic. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Ivanvector. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ivanvector DSP2092^talk 05:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as I mentioned it above already, please allow me to rephrase that. I have based my study and research on DDB Mudra and Savage Humans, the only two other "agencies" from India on Wikipedia. So, if I have it right according to my knowledge, either all three (DDB Mudra, Savage Humans and Tetramind) can stay or all three have to go. do give it a thought! Thank you :) bɑʁɑqoxodaraP (talk) 15:27, 2 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 Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Klemetsrud Puhl[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE as a failed judicial nominee. Being a assistant United States attorney does not correlate to someone meeting the notability requirements. A redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies would be fine. Let'srun (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and North Dakota. Let'srun (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies as WP:ATD-R. Aside from failed nomination, coverage all seems to be trivial mentions: "Subject said something about case". —siro χo 18:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmatovo (company)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nn candy company. Lacking independent sources. Notability tag ignored. - Altenmann >talk 15:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 27 September 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 Rifts (role-playing game). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Intelligence (Palladium Books)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a procedural nomination started by an IP. Their reason is "Long time, no sources nor proof of notability. Long WP:OR in-universe essay." Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete abandoned unreferenced cruft. - Altenmann >talk 16:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my earlier PROD and now this AfD. Article was created in 2007 as WP:OR and has never enjoyed the support of a source. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unsourced cruft article. It's existence for 16 years baffles me. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't much better. I've prodded it, too. Feel free to AfD it, as well. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rifts (role-playing game) which aleady has coverage of the topic, as WP:ATD-R. —siro χo 18:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unsourced, in-universe plot summary. No coverage in reliable sources indicating that this is a topic that passes the WP:GNG. I suppose I wouldn't care that much if it was used as a Redirect as suggested above per WP:CHEAP, but I honestly don't see this being a useful or likely search term. Rorshacma (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rifts (role-playing game) per siroχo. BOZ (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Wikia. Not a believable redirect either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rifts (role-playing game) per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:39, 2 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 Casuariiformes#Taxonomy. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Casuariiformes species[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only 4 extant species (bird lists usually only list the extant ones) and even including extinct ones, there's only 10. Not enough to merit a separate page. AryKun (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Lists. AryKun (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
merge into Casuariiformes: it already contains some taxonomy. I bet overlapping, so merge hardly will make the article too large. - Altenmann >talk 16:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Casuariiformes#Taxonomy as per Altenmann. --awkwafaba (📥) 17:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Casuariiformes § Taxonomy to help readers better understand the topic, per WP:NOPAGE. —siro χo 18:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Casuariiformes § Taxonomy per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:31, 2 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Eastell[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (academics), People notable for only one event and Wikipedia:Attack page.

The subject, who is an academic, has received little if any attention in reliable secondary sources except for coverage of a dispute that led to his resignation as a research director at the Sheffield Teaching Hospitals. Other than the dispute, the biographical information is taken from his employers or himself.

The dispute itself which was reported at the time and subsequently included in an article in Times Higher Education did not receive sufficient coverage for an article.

With such little information, a comprehensive article about Eastell and his career cannot be written and therefore it is an attack page.

TFD (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- a surprising nomination, given that the subject obviously meets WP:NACADEMIC #3 and #8. Per this -- open the bottom section, "professional activities and memberships, he is a fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences (NACADEMIC #3) and editor of the journal Bone (NACADEMIC #8). Expand the article as appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's questionable whether either of these criteria apply. In any case, since you created this article 14 years ago, you have had plenty of time to expand the article. U can only assume that there are no secondary sources to enable you to do this. TFD (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like plenty of additional information was added in April 2017 yet Nomoskedasticity and another user reverted it, saying "We're not going to have more than half this article built on WP:PRIMARY sources.". Now you are quoting the same source, stating that the article could be easily expanded? AFrozenCookieMonster (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The person's notability is marginal. The article as created and now comes off as more an attack article rather than a reasonable BLP. Thus if nothing else the article violates the do no harm tenant of BPL. Clearly UNDUE emphasis on "controversies" that don't justify the existence of the article. If the controversies are given appropriate weight the article becomes little more than a sub.

Springee (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I support delete, if we address the BLP issues associated with 1/2 the article being about accusations etc then I am far less concerned about the rest of the article being short. Springee (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPROF. I see a large number of highly-cited articles on Google Scholar, and although many of them are also highly coauthored and this is a higher citation field, it looks like enough for WP:NPROF C1 to me. Looking at the fellowship in the Academy of Medical Sciences, it looks like a probably pass of WP:NPROF C3. Comment that the editor role at Bone is _not_ a pass of WP:NPROF C8, as this is only for an editor-in-chief. The president roles in (somewhat minor) academic societies might on the other hand be a pass of WP:NPROF C6. I agree with other editors that the coverage of controversies, while necessary, is over-long and over-detailed. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Russ Woodroofe's analysis. As others note care should be taken in this BLP. Specifically, it seems likely that the note about a 2010 dispute is UNDUE in the controversies section; unless there is other coverage not summarized here, the event is minor and the mere mention in the section overstates it. . —siro χo 19:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have generally accepted FMedSci in the past as meeting WP:PROF and the citation profile looks excellent with 8 works above a thousand citations (though lots of coauthors). It would seem possible to tone down the criticism section of the article in order to reflect a more-balanced picture. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apart from high citability (which is high even for a high citation field), the subject received several awards from the scholarly societies listed in the "Awards and honours" section of the article (e.g. Frederick C Bartter Award from the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, 2014; Society for Endocrinology Medal, 2004; Kohn Award, National Osteoporosis Society, 2004). I am not sure if any of these awards are sufficiently prestigious to satisfy WP:PROF#C2 on its own, but together with the citation record they are certainly sufficient to satisfy WP:PROF#C1. Nsk92 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For sake of openness, this is a page on my father (apologies for any mistakes in wiki markup - I am still new to it). Nonetheless, the subject's notability feels marginal (sorry, Dad) and the page was created by Nomoskedasticity for the sole purpose (as per the history) of attacking the subject by highlighting (at the time) an ongoing investigation in which he has since been found innocent of misconduct (all a contradiction of WP:SUSPECT). As has been noted elsewhere, and by many others, the "Controversy" really isn't one, yet even now the article focuses almost entirely on this (over half the article is the Controversy section and the associated references - not aligning with WP:AVOIDVICTIM: "biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic"). Any other information about the subject is often swatted away - usually by the creator (Nomoskedasticity) as "Not verifiable by Independent Reliable Sources". AFrozenCookieMonster (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC) — AFrozenCookieMonster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Just wanted to thank everyone for their time, help and input - I feel the page is looking much more balanced now - I've changed my "delete vote" to a "comment". Many thanks! (Hope this is all ok). AFrozenCookieMonster (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment along these lines that it might be good if some established editors kept this page watchlisted against the possibility of a Controversies section ballooning up again. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I do not believe that Eastell meets the notability guideline for academics, I find that guideline may violate policy because it does not require coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I opened a discussion of the guideline at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability (academics). TFD (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with others that while the article's subject may have just enough notability to be included based on their academic achievements, the article violates the "do no harm" tenet and does read more like an attack page. This applies in particular since the article's creator has repeatedly been doing their utmost to revert changes made to make the article more balanced, often without comment, until a public discussion about the article was started and the balance started shifting, and there is no guarantee that they won't recommence that practice once interest in the article on the side of the editors has waned. Seeing as the subject has not actually had any decisions made against him, the (still considerable) prominence of the "controversies" section seems rather skewed. Toxictigger (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC) — Toxictigger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I concur with the arguments above that the relevant wiki-notability guideline is satisfied in multiple ways and that bringing the "Controversies" coverage into line can be done without deletion. Indeed, Russ Woodroofe has already made a start on that. XOR'easter (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:Prof, apart from the controversy. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I agree this individual passes WP:PROF. I've removed the "controversies" section and folded into the main career section being careful not to place undue weight on untested allegations, and skipping over extraneous elements like the settlement paid to the whistleblower. BrigadierG (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easy pass of WP:NPOL as described above. There are other processes for the subject to request removal (and make the case that the subject is largely a low-profile individual). --Enos733 (talk) 18:18, 2 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Ramsey[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article only has one site as a source outside of WP:PRIMARY sources, in-universe tagged since 2020, nothing found via WP:BEFORE outside of some discussion of the actor. Entire sections are unsourced. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*delete fails WP:GNG. - Altenmann >talk 16:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - correction to nominator: the article has one site as a primary source, with the remaining 6 references being non-primary sources... Subject meets GNG. – Meena • 17:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Meena: One of them seems to be an interview, though I cannot view it to truly verify. Interviews count under WP:PRIMARY. The other 5 all come from the same website, which I am fairly certain is strongly discouraged. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it is about a fictional character, then it is not primary, as obviously the fictional character cannot speak about themselves... DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ as the sources show notability. Only one is primary, and the others are not. The article needs a bit of work but deletion ≠ improvement. It would have been nice to have been told/wakened about this beforehand so we could have had more time to improve the article before being deleted rather than being rushed into improving it in a few days, especially as there is an active wikiproject aimed at the improving the Hollyoaks characters. Also, per WP:SOAPS and MOS:PLOTSOURCE, storylines sections don't need to be sourced. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Strong keep per the improvements made by Raintheone, as it now more sourced and less in universe.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have worked on the article today and I hope the improvements count towards it passing GNG/SIGCOV. I have added sourced content and rewrote sections. I hope this explains the fictional element more clearly and provides the real world perspective on the topic. I would like to you @(Oinkers42): and @Altenmann: revisit this in regards to the changes I have made. The article still needs work though and I will keep on looking for more content to add.Rain the 1 22:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You have to add more refs to the lede and storylines. But I agree now it is keepable. - Altenmann >talk 00:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you RT1 for your amazing help! Altenmann, thank you for agreeing but just a note: the storyline sections do not sources per WP:SOAPS and MOS:PLOTSOURCE. May I please ask why the lead needs refs? Everything there is sourced? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article meets notability guidelines. Soaper1234 - talk 20:26, 30 September 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 Virginia Mennonite Conference or a subsection therein, which can be handled editorially Star Mississippi 01:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Mennonite Missions[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not confident that this passes WP:ORG. The only sources I could find about Virginia Mennonite Missions was on anabaptistworld.org, which according to their staff page is associated with Mennonites, so I can't call it an independent source. It might be best to redirect this article to Virginia Mennonite Conference. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 14:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Virginia. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 14:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search term too generic for me to find anything on Google. BrigadierG (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. I ran across the article after its creator began repeatedly pasted large chunks of promotional copyright from their website. After some pointless back-and-forth of restoring the redirect and deletion revisions of the copyright, I tried to start a neutral stub as a way forward for the not-quite-single-purpose (and apparently COI) editor. But the only RS I've found so far is the two Anabaptist World references cited, one of which only mentions VMM in passing, and neither of which are independent, as noted by nominator. Maybe another editor will have better luck finding significant coverage in some independent RS. Wikishovel (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
mergee/redirect to Virginia_Mennonite_Conference#Organization_and_commissions. - Altenmann >talk 16:12, 27 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Meshioye Remilekun Toyosi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This story is tragic, but there is no indication that this event is notable in any way, other than the conspiracy that has grown up around it over the failure of any authorities to provide a clear cause of death. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Egypt and Nigeria. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unpleasant, but not a notable incident. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is NOT NEWS. There is no greater significance of this incident, and while unfortunate, there will be no prolonged coverage. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Falling sick and dying isn't notable, unless there was some unusual reason why it happened, this is a routine event. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: False information is on this page. Whathappentoremi 20:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS. Jacona (talk) 15:00, 2 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Million Dollar Round Table[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG ~T PW 13:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ~T PW 13:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is discussed in a peer-reviewed study here [8], plus with other coverages in Gnews, I think we're ok. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And here [9], second article from 1949 helps, rest are also coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep This is a well-known organization that has been covered by scholarly sources and industry publications. I added some citations to the article, including an external link (can't access the full text) of a McGraw-Hill book about the organization. There's more out there but this was a selection of quality sources.

Oblivy (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've added two citations, one to Perrin, The Incomparable Salesmen which is a book-length study of MDRT members. That's the "peer-reviewed study" (probably not) cited by @Oaktree b above. The 1949 article is paywalled.

I also took the opportunity wikify the article. The Perrin book along with any of citations 3, 4, or 5 should be enough to meet WP:NORG. The book "Flock of Eagles" is useful for the history but it's published by MDRT which probably disqualifies it for notability. Oblivy (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oaktree b and Oblivy. Passes WP:ORG/WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 22:25, 3 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 Aleph Institute. I'd normally relist this, but as nothing would be deleted and this is something that could have been done without AfD, I do not see the need. Star Mississippi 01:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

European Aleph Institute[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge intto Aleph Institute, the parent organization. No reason for a separate page for the European offshoot of the same organization. Longhornsg (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, Europe, and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 27 September 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 Penguin Classics. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Penguin Crime & Espionage[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Promo and WP:toosoon ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Penguin Classics, the umbrella topic. -- asilvering (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keyton[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Even inside Fujian Motors Group sources are low quality. I couldn't find better sources ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per WP:ROTM and WP:GNG and no RS found. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:58, 27 September 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 Jameson Irish Whiskey. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jameson Crested Ten[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Marge I propose we merge this stub into Jameson Irish Whiskey. I think the contents of this page should be in a section listing other varieties of the company's products, in the same way as Powers (whiskey) does. Personally I think short stubs like this about individual products belong in the parent article and not very useful as a stand alone without sufficient prose. Perhaps the products require their own section. ww2censor (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jameson Irish Whiskey: Nothing terribly notable for the sub-brand, that can't be said by incorporating it into the main brand. Very fine product too, I do enjoy it. Oaktree b (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect (or failing that, simply delete). Nothing to indicate that this product meets WP:PRODUCT for independent notability. Guliolopez (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above - Spleodrach (talk) 12:43, 1 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Surridge[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Professor. No RS or SIGCOV (The Guardian link is to contributed content), fails WP:GNG; WP:NACADEMIC Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. Not my area but the top citations in GS [10] are quite promising (201,179,127,93,87) though total citations are fairly low. There are 3 coauthored books, for which reviews should be sought. The Guardian appears to treat her as an expert. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep per reviews found by David Eppstein. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found two reviews each of two books, added to the article. Because the books are coauthored and two of the reviews are of multiple books, I think by themselves they would only make a borderline case for WP:AUTHOR but putting them together with the citation record above and WP:PROF#C1 I think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 28 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shreyash Shandiliya[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely stood up on excruciating advertorial copy, "Shreyash Shandiliya, a wonderful music aficionado, tries to share true spiritual music through several of his upcoming ventures." this Indian musician fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, India, and Bihar. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a LOT of coverage from what are normally RS. They can't all have sponcon or syndiacted press release warnings I've missed. Mach61 (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly labelled "Brand Stories" [11], this is advertising/sponsored [12]. Rest is about as colourful, PR type stuff. Delete for no coverage outside of PR content. Oaktree b (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourced to PR/advertorials.-KH-1 (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bioinformation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases (ESCI is not selective enough), no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded without reason given by an editor using the same name as the journal's editor-in-chief. Other editors added some references. However, library entries or being included in the Emerging Sources Citation Index and PubMed Central does not meet NJournals (and even less GNG). PROD reason therefore still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indexing is done by for profit organizations and or companies. Why should an journal be indexed for sharing data and knowledge? Article 10 is primary and freedom of expression should be upheld. We are disclosing our identity and views. Kangueane (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — Kangueane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Can you explain what "article 10" is? And freedom of expression doesn't mean that you can put whatever you like in Wikipedia, that's not how an encyclopedia works. That indexing services are produced by commercial companies is irrelevant. So are most newspapers and we still use them as reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is relevant in knowledge creation. Knowledge creation is not an automated process. Thousands of scientists are involved over decades of hardwork. Ignoring an effort is a loss to knowledge creation. The idea of WP is to share knowledge with a broad spectrum of people from a broad spectrum of people. This is the idea. Your enthusiasm to delete an article by mere bureaucracy is not evolution in knowledge creation. Kangueane (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — Kangueane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Correct, but we need sourcing that confirms why this is notable. Bureaucracy is needed to keep the lights on and the wiki running; it doesn't just happen, we need people to do the work so it appears at it does. No rules, this place falls apart. Oaktree b (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Entries in library catalogues do not constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. The journal is not indexed in any selective databases, per WP:NJOURNALS. There is thus no evidence that this journal meets our notability guidelines on inclusion, and no policy-based reasons have been given for keeping the article. WJ94 (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be more specific instead of making general comments. Kangueane (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — Kangueane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The journal has received more than 12000 citations with 2000 plus citations in the last 2 years taken for IF calculation with 1.9 for 2022. Source is JCR CLARIVATE ANALYTICS INC Kangueane (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — Kangueane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Reliable source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/480/ Kangueane (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — Kangueane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

PubMed Central is not selective, it indexes every OA journal in biomedicine, as well as articles on research financed by the US NIH. Bioinformation has an impact factor because it is included in ESCI, which is not a highly selective database. Finally, once you're more familiar with how things are done here, you'll realize that WJ94's comments are accurate and to-the-point. BTW, Kangueane, please read WP:BLUDGEON. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May be your quite familiar with these terms that humiliates people Kangueane (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — Kangueane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Things done here or elsewhere if needed clarity and amendments, it should be adhered to. Kangueane (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — Kangueane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: Journal fails to meet the notability policies outlined in NJOURNAL and GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria are comprehensive and representative in nature. WP did not choose to name a DB. Kangueane (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — Kangueane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please go read WP:BLUDGEON. You are being disruptive. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly make your case in simple terms so that everyone understands. Kangueane (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — Kangueane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: A 1.9 citation factor is paltry, we'd need much more coverage of the journal. There is none that I can find, all results are mention of the term itself. Delete for lack of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of journals with impact factor less than 1. This is an endeavour for knowledge creation. WP will be missing in knowledge if all data, information and knowledge is bulldozed out.Note that knowledge is unlimited. Engage a broad spectrum of data. Travel around and see the world from a different perspective. Kangueane (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — Kangueane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. We do not have evidence that this journal satisfies the requirements of GNG, which is the only guideline applicable. @Kangueane, if you can find discussion of the journal in reliable, independent, secondary sources you may be able to demonstrate notability.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. Im new to WP. Quite a knowledge debate Kangueane (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am an academic editor among several other editors on the board. Let me also state that the academic editors are not paid but honorary positions for experts in the field. I am also editor for a couple of other journals and never been paid for any of my editing or reviewing services. I can also declare that all the content written by me on this topic is not paid in any form. This is all voluntarily.

Also on the very first day, I created my account on wikipedia, I added all my affiliations and related links.

Let me brief my points here:

1. I am new to wiki editing and therefore not aware how many different tags should I reply to make a point that the journal qualifies all the criteria (WP:JOURNALCRIT and general notability guideline) and deserve a stand-alone page. My other colleagues agreed on this point in a separate thread on Bioinformation talk page .

2. To the best of my knowledge, the journal does not have any dedicated marketing/advertising team and it is run by the scientists, and for the scientists. All the articles are in open-access, peer reviewed and indexed in major indexing services.

3. Anyone who is taking a final call on deletion, please be aware that this is a small publishing house and published quality scientific work. Deleting this page, will give a upper hand only to large publishing houses.

4. Wikipedia has pages for predatory journals (I refrain to name anyone) and not listing a legitimate academic journal will leave a wrong impression.

5. You can check on the journal citation reports (a totally independent and renowned reporting) that this is the only journal from India who ever get indexed/received an impact factor in Mathematical and computational Biology category (My field of expertise). This intrigues me to create this page. All the information added by me on the Bioinformation are verifiable through independent sources. Skdhanda (talk) 15:04, 29 September 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!} 02:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Osborne, Nipissing District[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable railway point. –dlthewave ☎ 04:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. –dlthewave ☎ 04:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, no information found. Furthermore, the citations in the article (except for the map) do not refer to this location, only to Osborne Township. No WP:SIGCOV or coverage of any kind, really. I could make the exact same argument about all the other railroad siding nominations below. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:29, 27 September 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!} 02:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diver, Ontario[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable railway point. –dlthewave ☎ 04:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. –dlthewave ☎ 04:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. This locale is notable only in relation to the railway that goes through this point. TH1980 (talk) 23:31, 30 September 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!} 02:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lash, Ontario[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable railroad siding. –dlthewave ☎ 04:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. –dlthewave ☎ 04:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. This locale is notable only in relation to the railway that goes through this point. TH1980 (talk) 23:31, 30 September 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!} 02:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Niddrie, Ontario[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable railroad siding. –dlthewave ☎ 04:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. –dlthewave ☎ 04:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. This locale is notable only in relation to the railway that goes through this point. TH1980 (talk) 23:33, 30 September 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!} 05:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan, Ontario[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable railway point. –dlthewave ☎ 04:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sometimes an area's geology can establish notability. Pyrrhotite was found near Morgan, according to the Geological Survey of Canada, but that fact on its own doesn't establish notability. No !vote from me yet. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. This locale is notable only in relation to the railway that goes through this point. TH1980 (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to support notability.

JoelleJay (talk) 19:52, 3 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 List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty Boys[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor group of villains from comic books, pure plot summary with some notes about which comics they appeared in. Sourced to comic books and a passing mention in sportskeeda, flagged by my RS script as "generally unreliable source". Delete or redirect if anyone has an idea of where to? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations seems like a decent target for a Merge. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with BoomboxTestarossa, merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations —siro χo 07:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. To the closer of this page, I ask that any members of the Nasty Boys who redirect to this page should have their bios transferred to their respectful List of Marvel Comics characters page like how @BOZ: did with those who were redirected to the Circus of Crime prior to it's AFD discussion. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:08, 30 September 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 Cars (franchise). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radiator Springs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictonal town, pure plot summary that fails WP:GNG. BEFORE is not helpful - the academic paper that appears on top of GScholar mentioning this in its name uses this just for, well, name - in the text this is mentioned ~2 in passing (SIGCOV fail). Any analysis I see (based on sources in the article) boils down to a single sentence that "Many characters and places in the film are directly inspired by real Route 66 places and people."; note "many characters in places" - this is not even specific to this fictional location but to the movie itself. While there is a bit of fan trivia about which Route 66 locations (in and outside Radiator Springs) can be seen in the animated movie, this is fandom-level fancruft, I fear. At best this can be redirected to the movie, per SOFTDELETE and ATD. PS. Note the 2008 AfD already concluded as delete and redirect, so this is technically a speedy-qualifying restoration of deleted content... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If deemed insufficiently notable per se, redirect to Cars (franchise) (where it is repeatedly mentioned, obviously) as the nominator himself mentions.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cars (franchise) If a town exists one day based on this, the it can have its own page. Also, since it wasn't developed by the same editor, I don't think it qualifies for speedy. Conyo14 (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cars (franchise) per nom. FatCat96 (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cars (franchise) - The current article is just plot summary and a whole lot of trivia. Searches do not demonstrate that the town has any notability on its own - its the setting of a notable franchise and thus is mentioned in sources discussing that franchise, but does not have the kind of coverage that would warrant an independent article. Its a plausible search term, so redirecting to the franchise page makes the most sense. Rorshacma (talk) 20:05, 27 September 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!} 05:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone D. Bland[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by a COI and likely UPE editor. Of the sources in the article, the first, from Variety, actually is likely a reasonable source, but one does not notability make. The second is from an employer, so not independent. The third just briefly quotes him, but has nothing in-depth. The fourth is from an employer, so not independent. The fifth is a press release. A search for additional sources finds some blogs and the like (as well as some sources which mention a "Tyrone Bland" who lives in Australia and is not related at all to this individual), but nothing more substantial with which to write a biography. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Politicians. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, fails WP:BIO and GNG. I couldn't find SIGCOV in reliable sources either. He seems to have played college football for UC [13], but I can find nothing to suggest that he meets WP:ATHLETE either. Wikishovel (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Variety is fine, but there are no other sources. Gnews has PR pieces confirming the person was named to a board of directors, which is nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Variety is fine, but not in and of itself enough: being a government relations lobbyist for a talent agency is in no way an "inherently" notable role that would guarantee an instant free inclusion pass, so it takes a lot more than just one valid piece of reliable source coverage to get a person into Wikipedia for that — but all the rest of the footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 28 September 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!} 05:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Teresa (fictional city)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is effectively an ORish List of works which feature a fictional city named Santa Terasa. This fails GNG and NLIST as well. It might be the case this could be rescued by restoring it as an entry about the fictional town from Sue Grafton's works, although the analysis in the article is limited to one sentence "Grafton chose the setting as a tribute to Macdonald, an acknowledged influence" and my BEFORE fails to locate anything more significant. Old AfDs from 2008 are not helpful, as back then the consensus was that "it is notable because it is the setting of a notable work of fiction". We have a bit higher standards these days, and pure plot summary, particularly degenerated by trivia about similarly named entities by other authors, likely merits WP:TNT or perhaps a redirect per WP:ATD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not needed per nom. GenuineArt (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As described by the nom, this article is not actually an article on a genuine topic, its a WP:OR listing of several completely unrelated books that happened to use the same name for a city. The examples are very clearly not even supposed to be the same fictional city, making this a complete unfocused mess. At best, this could be redirected to Sue Grafton, where the use of the fictional city name as the setting of her novels is already described. Rorshacma (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR synthesis of the use of these words. Not supported by reliable secondary sources, which is essential to meet WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a synthesis of unrelated works that happened to have a similarly named city. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:32, 2 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 Ollamh Érenn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Beathaidh mac Ainmire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Single EL but no references. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Poetry, History, and Ireland. UtherSRG (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Little is known" about the person, means there is no sourcing. I can't find anything in Gscholar, Books or Jstor we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, failing that, redirect to Ollamh Érenn. If all that can be said about a subject is that they lived, held a title/post/role and then died, it would seem that they do not meet any applicable criteria. The short pieces of text that we have in the article (copied/pasted from the Irish annals) could just as easily be covered in the Ollamh Érenn article. Not seeing the need for a standalone article on one such office/title-holder... Guliolopez (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ollamh Érenn: as an WP:ATD. There is simply no coverage of this person at all, save for extremely passing mentions in the four medieval annals. Curbon7 (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge (to Ollamh Érenn). Note that there are multiple possible spellings of both Beathaidh and Ainmire. Srnec (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of online sources contemporary to the subject. Better yet, due to lack of sources altogether. Note: One would advise caution about Merging text unsupported by sources, since it is customary in these parts to defenestrate said texts rather than moving them about. But a Redirect cannot be excluded. -The Gnome (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lack of online sources contemporary to the subject. The subject died long before the internet. All the contemporary sources cited in the article are available online. Just click through to the articles. Srnec (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - seems like a worthwhile section on a different page, if one can be agreed. It's not inconceivable that more could be found if one looked in offline archives and libraries. As/when someone does that, maybe there would be enough to satisfy the notability criteria. JMWt (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the lines in the article is "Little is known of his life, other than his obituary" so via WP:NOTMEMORIAL delete.Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ollamh Érenn. Spleodrach (talk) 22:01, 3 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!} 05:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sirius 26[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the sources are routine coverage; they are indexes dedicated to raw information on sailboats. Search online reveals no sources good enough for Wikipedia. Bremps... 00:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article should not have been brought for AfD as a first step, prior to any talk page discussion, or even article tagging for improvement. Please see WP:BEFORE for the correct sequence, especially item C3 If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it. The article has now been expanded with additional refs and text. - Ahunt (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - there is a whole sailing project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sailing with very similar articles. I fail to see where the majority of articles might find sources good enough. If they have not been challenged as well, maybe the other 6,000 + articles of low importance are in the same boat.JarrahTree 01:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a completely disingenuous argument. GNG is universal. Shall we say that anything that falls under at least one WikiProject cannot ever be deleted??? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a good point, JarrahTree. I went to the Sailing projects and picked 3 boats at random and all 3 had MAJOR sourcing issues. There needs to be a huge undertaking of improving/deleting/draftifying these articles. -- Mike 🗩 18:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Sailing, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. Skynxnex (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the clear inability of the keep voters to show any coverage in sources besides databases. "The article has been expanded" with exclusively primary sources, failing to show any secondary source coverage. I don't know what sort of local consensus sailboat fans think they have, but GNG applies to them just as it does to everyone else. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think you are confused. WP:PRIMARY sources would be references such as the manufacturer's website. WP:SECONDARY sources would be sources, such as a class type club, analysis and reviews. All the sources cited in the article are WP:TERTIARY sources, unrelated to the manufacturer and certainly not primary sources. The links explain the distinction. WP:GNG states A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All the ten sources currently cited meet that criteria. - Ahunt (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It is the group of sailboat fans including yourself who consider GNG and notabililty optional that are confused. If you consider TWO SENTENCES (and several of these are literally just two sentences) to be significant coverage, you clearly are dealing in alternative facts. It's rather clear you're throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks, which is why all you've been able to gather are database sites like the appropriately named sailboatdata.com and sailboat.guide. Wikipedia is not a database, and all you've done is scrape databases. These do not meet GNG and do not contribute to a claim of notability. If this sailboat is notable, why are you unable to locate a single example of a substantive review, analysis, commentary, or story involving it?
  
  Do me a favor and reread WP:GNG. I will highlight the relevant sentence for you: Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Since we are in agreement that this article has no secondary sources, it logically follows the subject is not notable and does not merit its own article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you need to read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and remove your personal attacks above. This is not how we conduct AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was expecting such a reply as you are unable to refute my arguments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, specific assessment of new article expansion and sources would be useful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources only show that the boat exists. I see no significant coverage from reliable sources that indicate notability. -- Mike 🗩 13:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did a quick source assessment, there just isn't anything that would remotely pass WP:GNG. If this is the quality of sources, most sailboat articles have, a huge undertaking needs to be performed of cleanup and removal.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
1	sailboatdata.com claims to use brochures from the manufacturer	sailboatdata.com uses a mixture of plans, brochures, and user submissions	Just a database entry	✘ No
2	sailboatdata.com claims to use brochures from the manufacturer	sailboatdata.com uses a mixture of plans, brochures, and user submissions	Just a database entry	✘ No
3		Community curated and also claims to gather information from Wikipedia	Database entry	✘ No
4		Community curated and also claims to gather information from Wikipedia	Database entry	✘ No
5		Community curated and also claims to gather information from Wikipedia	Database entry	✘ No
6		No statements of editorial independence, just 'sailing passionates'		✘ No
7		? No indication of how facts are gathered	Just basic facts	✘ No
8	sailboatdata.com claims to use brochures from the manufacturer	sailboatdata.com uses a mixture of plans, brochures, and user submissions	Just a database entry	✘ No
9	sailboatdata.com claims to use brochures from the manufacturer	sailboatdata.com uses a mixture of plans, brochures, and user submissions	Just a database entry	✘ No
10		Community curated and also claims to gather information from Wikipedia	Database entry	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

-- Mike 🗩 14:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You can note that the vast majority of sailboat class articles have multiple reviews from magazines and books. Most new production sailboats end up with multiple third party reviews published, as there are dozens of industry magazines that cover new product releases, conduct sailing trials on them and naturally manufacturers are keen to provide new-production demonstrator boats for magazines to write about. As the text describes, this particular boat was a short production run, as the company went out of business shortly after its introduction and only six were produced. The inclusion of the article is for purposes of completing the story of this manufacturer. Because it was an established manufacturer, the boat class probably was reviewed in magazines at the time, but this was the pre-internet year of 1987 and these paper publications have been hard to locate. I should also add that all third party reviews, book references and similar will use technical data provided by the manufacturer, as they are sole source of information like the boat's displacement. This is true of reviews done of almost every type of product, including cars, railway locomotives, airplanes and similar; reviewers have no means of independently determining much of the data used. There is always use made of manufacturer's data in third party reviews. - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up locomotives as an example. Here's one source on a locomotive model that gives more information than all of yours combined: [14]. And, it is published by a reliable secondary source. I am still waiting for you to show us sources that even come close to this level of coverage. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can't yet see a consensus on whether the sources cited in the article are enough to show notability. Input from new participants would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG due to complete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Only sourced by database sources. Alvaldi (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did find this article from The Sun Times (Owen Sound) on Newspapers.com. The publication is from the same town as the company that made the boat. Regardless, WP:GNG requires multiple sources of SIGCOV so even if it wasn't so hyper-local the article would still need more sources to pass. That said, a redirect to Vandestadt and McGruer Limited is also perfectly fine by me if no SIGCOV is found. Alvaldi (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Darth Mike @Trainsandotherthings Would you support a redirect to Vandestadt and McGruer Limited instead of deletion? Alvaldi (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any reliably sourced information to merge. -- Mike 🗩 19:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am in concurrence with Darth Mike. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the sources I can find appear to be WP:ROUTINE, Fails WP:GNG and I don't see any WP:SNG guideline that would apply. Jacona (talk) 15:20, 2 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 04:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Grammar School[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass WP:NSCHOOL, and by extension WP:NCORP and/or WP:GNG - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 02:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Ghana. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 02:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:NCORP, and WP:GNG.

FatCat96 (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above comment. Aydoh8 (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been signicantly expanded since the last "delete" !vote, which requires additional evaluation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - this was a good relist in my opinion. User:Samuel Ola appears to have some information on the subject, but supporting references are needed. - Indefensible (talk) 06:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, there's enough content there that the school shows signs of notability, but needs more work to definitively prove it. Some more time in the drafting oven would help it enormously. GraziePrego (talk) 04:15, 3 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. There is a sharp divide among editors about what should happen with this article and I don't think further relistings will tilt opinion decisively into either the Keep or the Merge/Redirect camp. There are editors who argue that this article meets WP:NLIST and others who believe it is excessive and a game guide (see WP:NOTHOWTO). At the very least, this article needs some editing, trimming and a possible renaming. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page was deleted in 2019 for being a WP:GAMEGUIDE, and I do not believe has changed substantially since then for the better. This should really have been ineligible for WP:REFUND, as it only applies to discussions with "little to no participation". It continues to have the same major issues as last time it was nominated for deletion. Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons was created as the one main list for any actually notable creatures within the game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after vast improvement in sourcing over the condition it was in at time of the first AFD. The article now contains a significant amount of independently sourced content on the concept of monsters in 3rd edition in general and on specific monsters as well. Failing that, there is significant potential for improvement and this should be moved back Draft rather than deleted again. BOZ (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like your vote should be draftify PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, I meant Keep as my primary position.

To counter the claims that this violates WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:NOTDATABASE, this is not an indiscriminate list but a list defined by monsters that have been published in specific official D&D 3rd edition books. It is a sortable drop-down list for a single edition because a list for monsters of all editions would be too big. Monsters of D&D have been discussed in independent commentaries, as clearly shown in this article. These independent sources provide context with referenced explanations. The majority of the content for each monster goes beyond plot summary-only descriptions of the monsters in question. These sources discuss the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of these monsters in addition to concise summaries. These are likewise not excessive listings of statistics that lack context or explanation as each entry contains very little in-game statistical information, and do include explanatory text providing context. It does not present information as an instruction manual or guidebook and does not provide "how-to" explanations on how to play the game or how to use the monsters in the game. These gameplay concepts as a whole and many individually are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context. With the independent sources provided, this list serves an important encyclopedic purpose for readers to better understand the subjects individually and as a whole. This is more than a simple listing without context, which has been adequately supplied as to which elements of the game these came from and when they were published. It also provides a timeline of the game over several years, which provides an inherent context to the growth and establishment of the game over time. This is not a walkthrough, nor does it provide even remotely enough information to play the game. The fact that more of the entries currently lack independent sources is something likely to change over time given how many have been added the amount of time that this was in draft space, and I believe that in time this list will continue to improve if it remains in article space. BOZ (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination above is faulty, in providing no self-contained deletion rationale, only referring to a prior discussion's deletion rationales which turn out to be bogus. Here's the original: "Badly sourced list of mostly non-notable fictional creatures. Most of the monsters in the lists are not individually notable, and most don't even have any description besides their names". 1) The current version of the article has 120 sources and growing. 2) WP:Notability applies to what may have its own stand-alone article, and does not control list entries; that's the purview of WP:NOT polilcy, in particular WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#DATABASE, and WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE for content like this. While some lists have WP:LISTCRITERIA that limit their entries to notable ones, this is not such a list. 3) About half the entries have descriptions now, and more could be added at any time; this is a classic "argument to avoid", namely WP:IMPATIENT. In short, none of those three points from the original nomination are deletion rationales applicable to this article (and the latter two of them were never deletion rationales at all, while the first one about sourcing arguably wasn't either, but another form of IMPATIENT. (There's no real question that AD&D and major characters from it, as a class, pass WP:GNG, so that is not the kind of sourcing question that was ever at issue here. Rather, the original nom was concerned that specific entries were not sourced except to primary material.) But there are some reasons from NOT which probably apply. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GAMEGUIDE is a self-contained rationale, regardless of what the previous nomination said. As there is already a list with the most notable monster examples, the purpose of this separate list would appear to be a guide to all monsters in this edition regardless of importance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notwithstanding my above criticism of the nomination, I'll go with deletion on this, for substantively just re-creating previously deleted content without demonstrably encyclopedic improvement, and failure of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#DATABASE, and WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE: This indiscriminately lists every single official AD&D 3 monster without any regard to whether they are of encyclopedic interest, which is in effect making an AD&D monster database, which is not what this site is for, and without any purpose that seems distinct from writing game-guide material, also not what this site is for. This article has had a fair amount of work put into it, and should be ported probably to a D&D-focused wiki at Wikia or Fandom or whatever it is called now. I don't see a point of in locally draftifying this again, as it seems unlikely to ever be able to jump these three NOT hurdles. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, or Weak keep but rename. Weak keep b/c I expect this topic meets NLIST, per common sense. Now. First, I've created a redirect from List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters to here. Second, I think D&D can have one monster list - but why for 3rd edition only? This list should be renamed to the redirect created. Third, see some prior discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters. Fourth, consider (partial) merger with Monsters_in_Dungeons_&_Dragons#Notable_monsters. I say partial, because I am partial to idea of keeping both articles, but some content in the Monster... article seems to be very listy and should be moved to the list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note this subject certainly meets WP:NLIST. While any edition or box set likely meets NLIST, I do think Piotrus' approach is probably the best one for the encyclopedia moving forward -- it seems likely that our approach should be to have a single list across all editions. My big fear is that re-deletion here means we won't be able to take a multi-year-multi-editor approach to improving this notable topic, and instead we'll keep going back and forth between good faith low quality like this and deleted lists. In other words, WP:IMPERFECT is the way such articles get built over time.

The Special:diff/918797929/1176197514 between last AfD and this AfD shows how these articles can and do improve over time.

There is sourcing here that will be valuable to the future incarnations of the list including sourcing not specific to the 3rd edition. This sourcing also gets us out of GAMEGUIDE territory.

Lastly, given the provided context and RS, I don't think any of the 4 INDISCRIMINATE/NOTDATABASE points apply here in the articles' current incarnation. —siro χo 07:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list appears to be sufficiently sourced i.e. it's not just lifted from the indexes of various 3e monster books.Cortador (talk) 8:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep The parent topic, Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, is certainly notable, and so this list fullfills WP:LISTN. It is split by edition as a natural (chronological) dividing line to avoid too large a size, which makes sense to me. In my view it does not fail WP:GAMEGUIDE, because it is not "walk-throughs and detailed coverage", but rather "concise summary" plus commentary relating to real-world based on a number of secondary sources. Of course there still is a large number of uncommented entries, but as the improvements as compared to the last deletion discussions show, these can be and are remedied step by step. It makes sense to me to keep what's been based on primary sources in the spirit of WP:IMPERFECT, as described by Siroxo. Overall, I agree with BOZ's reasoning. It also has to be said that the article as is has been approved by a neutral editor through the WP:AfC process. Daranios (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just want to point out that all the comments stating that this list has sources outside of official gamebooks, and thus passes WP:LISTN are flawed, as most of those non-primary sources are really not on the concept of 3rd Edition D&D monsters at all. Some very specific entries (and, considering the immense number of entries in this list, a relatively small number) have sources discussing them or their origins, and that's it. And on top of that, those sources are generally not on their 3rd Edition incarnations specifically, but just the monster in general as its appeared throughout D&D as a whole. And that's not even considering that many of those sources come from "Top Ten" churnalism style lists from sites like ScreenRant, that very often are not considered valid sources for establishing notability. There's also the fact that almost all of the blue-linked entries here simply redirect to other "Lists of D&D monsters", most commonly the extremely similar List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. These facts really lend credence to the idea that a singular list of notable D&D monsters combining the sources and information from these various other lists is what should exist, not these massive separate lists like this one that, quite honestly is barely more than the table of contents of the official 3rd Edition monster manuals. Rorshacma (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uh oh, we certainly should merge this with List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. And any other lists. One list of D&D monsters is all I can imagine myself supporting, not more. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is no consensus. But as an uninvolved, non D&D playing editor, it seems redundant to have multiple lists of characters from the same gaming franchise. But of course, I'll carry out whatever action the consensus deems appropriate which is in line with Wikipedia policies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or partial merge to a full article about the series. This fails WP:LISTN, and Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:NOTDIR. Even so, it wouldn't make sense to break these articles apart by editions, and the lack of sources makes that WP:OR. It's possible that some of these concepts have some coverage, but it looks to be short of WP:SIGCOV. Something like Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons would be an appropriate place to put this, with more encyclopedic coverage about the topic instead of WP:OR from primary sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Monsters_in_Dungeons_&_Dragons#Notable_monsters (though, that section itself is getting to be kind of mess that desperately needed curation and cleanup at this point) - After thinking on it for a while, I have to concur with some other comments here. While monsters in D&D may be a notable idea, we should not have multiple redundant lists for different versions of the game, and any kind of singular list we do have should be curated and limited to genuinely notable examples (i.e. ones that have their own articles like Beholders or ones that have genuine non-primary coverage beyond having a couple sentence mentioned in churnalism "top ten" articles). That singular list should most certainly not be an indiscriminate list of every monster that ever appeared in the history of D&D with minutia going as far as listing the exact books and page numbers they appeared in. An article or list should not simply be the transcription of the table of contents of official D&D books. Ideally, my idea would be that both this page and List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters be eliminated as stand alone pages, and Monsters_in_Dungeons_&_Dragons#Notable_monsters be cleaned up. At that point, if that section becomes too long, then it can be split out into a single list of notable D&D monsters. But, most of that is a decision that goes beyond the scope of this AFD, so for this AFD here, my stance is that this list should not have been restored after its last AFD resulted in Deletion, and should be either re-deleted or used as a redirect to the main article on the topic. Rorshacma (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an essential element of a notable edition of a notable game. Too hefty to be merged into a parent list. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments for deletion are a) it should not have been given a WP:REFUND and b) it violates WP:GAMEGUIDE. The argument against REFUND does not stand; there were only 4 votes and 1 comment in the previous deletion argument; 4 votes constitutes "little or no participation". That leaves GAMEGUIDE. The text for GAMEGUIDE states "A concise summary of gameplay details (specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, etc.) is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry"; I would argue that the list of monsters, appropriately annotated with references and other relevant details, is both "concise" and "essential to the understanding of the game" and also demonstrates its history over time and therefore its significance to the industry.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment I am not sure I would recommend or agree merging this with the List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters; the 2nd and 3rd editions of the game are effectively not the same game, nor were they published at the same time. Merging those two would create a very large list and there would be significant issues in how to format and display the merged data (there is overlap between the two editions, but not complete duplication).Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm afraid that I can't agree that listing every monster that was ever published in each version of the game, the majority of which are not annotated with references, is in the least bit concise. And yes, the existence of monsters in D&D is certainly essential to understanding the game, but I would like to hear further explanation as to why a list of every monster in the game is "essential to understanding the game". The argument that merging with other similar lists having issues with size would be solved by simply not listing every non-notable creature from each edition. Rorshacma (talk) 04:32, 30 September 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!} 05:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bahari Ibaadat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem notable. References given are not reliable and there is also the WP:REFBOMB - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 02:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 02:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just pruned the majority of the article as unverifiable or non-neutral. Haven't checked into notability. —siro χo 04:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally best not to do that while the article is at AfD, so that participants can get a better idea of the subject's notability (or lack of it). Espresso Addict (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I noted it here, but to be clear I haven't removed anything that established notability. —siro χo 22:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Afghanistan as WP:ATD. That article is currently a WP:SETINDEX (a type of list), and as such only requires verifiability to include, I've added a reference for such. (I checked notability and was unable to find sources to establish it). —siro χo 07:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I don't think a Redirect to Miss Afghanistan is a good closure decision as it is just a disambiguation page that contains this article on it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, I'm not an expert on the topic, but the page at that title claims to be a WP:set index which is not intended to be a type of disambiguation. This does not appear to have been an annual competition like some, so it may very well be a complete set index, but I'm not sure. —siro χo 03:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Fails to meet criteria of WP:GNG. Not enough sources to confirm intrinsic value of an article.

Villon411 (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't find much in the way of WP:RS. The CNN source [15] looked promising until I realized that it was part iReport initiative, which is user generated and not verified by the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KH-1 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Worldiswide (talk) 03:41, 2 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 Bhanjanagar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baruda[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As written, the original article contained a lot of copyright violations written from a non-neutral point-of-view. I removed a lot of the copyvio, but now, I can't find information about the village from reliable sources, though they may exist. Significa liberdade (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bhanjanagar: Redirects are WP:CHEAP and this fails GNG. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems to be a census settlement per WP:GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per above and WP:NOPAGE. Census tracts aren't presumed notable per WP:GEOLAND, and the only data provided here is purely statistical. FOARP (talk) 08:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning redirect. Would that be okay with the nominator?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, no evidence this census tract has received SIGCOV in IRS.

JoelleJay (talk) 07:26, 28 September 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!} 05:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Muskogee shooting[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable shooting; got a burst of coverage at the time but the only sources since are routine coverage of the court proceedings that do not meet WP:SUSTAINED. No lasting WP:EFFECTs. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Oklahoma. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second deadliest shooting in the state, seems notable. Sourcing is solid... What do others think? Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what makes the second-deadliest shooting in a state inherently notable? Six deaths unfortunately isn't particularly unusual in the American context (there were 11 such shootings with at least 6 victims in 2021, and of the four other shootings with exactly six victims, two don't have articles). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I think if you check state newspapers you'll find things like anniversary coverage and more follow up coverage. I don't have the articles in front of me, but as a regular reader of the state's media coverage I've seen it pop up a few times. I'd have to do a WP:before of the Tulsa World and The Oklahoman's archives before I'd feel comfortable voting. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added some Trial coverage, but was honestly surprised I didn't find much more. I tried to find a state representative statement or response, but couldn't find any comments from public figures other than mayor Marlon Coleman.

Also, I didn't find much anniversary coverage either. But there is probably a little more trial coverage than what I added. While technically deadlier than the 2022 Tulsa hospital shooting, the response and sustained coverage appear to be a bit less, at least looking at state sources. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This is the very edge of WP:NTEMP. Notability is pretty well established at the time of the incident (NYT, AP, USAT), and regional coverage continues (Fox in 22 and the Phoenix in 23). Unlike other mass shooting events, this seems to have regional repercussions which just barely satisfies WP:NEVENT in my view. If TulsaPoliticsFan can find more regional sources, then I would move to a much stronger Keep !vote, but I think it squeaks by with cited WP:RSs. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC) •Weak Delete - TulsaPoliticsFan's research didn't turn out and WP:SIGCOV or WP:SUSTAINED outside already cited, and my own research simply didn't turn out anything for notable WP:EFFECTs of this event. Without that, we're left with WP:RSBREAKING as pointed out by other editors. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as discussed, there are some lingering coverage/articles about the event. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless any retrospective sources are found. Sources about this topic are all WP:RSBREAKING sources, either for the initial event or for the subsequent trial, and do not count toward GNG. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability doesn't expire. Cortador (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion argument centre on the fact that notability (from an |NEVENT viewpoint) never existed, not that it lost notability over time. Based on TulsaPoliticsFan's dive into regional sources, I am scratching my !vote to keep (see edit above). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My concern is the lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage and discussion of the event. Unlike the 2022 Tulsa hospital shooting, this shooting did not generate push for reforms or long term coverage. The death count is high, but it is just a shooting at a home that the reporting indicates happened because the perp is mentally unwell. It generated substantial local coverage (expected from a smaller town), some state-wide coverage (but much less than other shootings I'd call notable), and national headlines immediately after (the strongest case for notability). If there was more state-wide coverage from Oklahoma papers, I'd vote keep, but from my research this doesn't appear that notable outside of Muskogee. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ : NOTNEWS. Six people getting shot is routine these days in the USA. Zero coverage found, 2 yrs later. Oaktree b (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for perhaps not replying in the intended format but I wanted to share my 2 cents on this anyhow. I'm in favor of keeping it. The gravity of this topic may not be meet notability standards relative to American news context, as was pointed out elsewhere here, but from a non-American standpoint (such as mine) it still seems notable enough considering OK is a relatively quiet state and I think (not sure) this is the most severe assault since the 1995 OKC bombing. Kindly reconsider deletion, thank you. Alfredvanderzwam (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This comment on it being the deadliest violent event since the Oklahoma City Bombing appears to be mostly true. The only deadlier event (than the Muscogee shooting, not the bombing) we have an article for since is the 2023 Henryetta killings. On the other hand, I wouldn't call us a quiet state; I mean it is an open carry, or constitutional carry if you wanna be technical, state. Shootings aren't uncommon here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. User:Oaktree b can you cancel out your duplicate vote so it's easier to see where things stand?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, NOTNEWS and SUSTAINED. Sadly, not an uncommon occurrence these days in the United States. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !votes corrected, sorry. Wiki formatting still buggers me up sometimes. Oaktree b (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — A rampage murder of this scale isn't unique, but remains uncommon. The event currently stands at #64 in List of rampage killers (familicides in the United States). On that list there has been ONE such mass murder since this one happened in February 2021, and just eleven since 2010. (Yes there are other kinds of mass killings in the USA as well, but again we're speaking of under ten a year at this scale.) Separately, there has been at least some follow-up coverage marking the anniversary of the killing[16],[17].--Carwil (talk) 03:35, 4 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; didn't realize had a recent debate. (non-admin closure)‎ ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harberger Tax[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Random, obscure tax proposal. Not linked to by any other article; lacks importance as a concept. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a proposal made by multiple economists, including in a book that is most likely notable (Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society). I'd support a merge, but there isn't just one good merge target given these factors. Notability does not depend on popularity. Also worth noting that this recently survived AfD, with editors able to find significant coverage of the subject. I don't see how the circumstances have changed since. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎ keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ailem Carvajal Gómez[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Article is sourced entirely to self published sources. The tone is also not encyclopedic. WP:PROMO applies. Possibly created by the subject or someone connected to them. 4meter4 (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Women, and Cuba. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creating editor seems to have edited widely on Cuban music so I think the COI suggestion is probably not justified. I see there's a piece about her in EcuRed, but that is probably not a RS (have added it as an EL). PamD 08:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This archived source may be useful though Google Translate can't handle it and nor can my limited Spanish. PamD 08:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has an entry in Latin American Classical Composers: A Biographical Dictionary published by Rowman & Littlefield. PamD 08:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great find PamD! Nom withdrawn.4meter4 (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A-1 Auto Transport[edit]

Lesley Harris[edit]

João Bruno[edit]

Corpulent Stump[edit]

Mumin Aliyansyah[edit]

Emily Peachey[edit]

Part W[edit]

Barker (advertising agency)[edit]

Tetramind[edit]

Jennifer Klemetsrud Puhl[edit]

Dalmatovo (company)[edit]

Alien Intelligence (Palladium Books)[edit]

List of Casuariiformes species[edit]

Richard Eastell[edit]

Zak Ramsey[edit]

Virginia Mennonite Missions[edit]

Death of Meshioye Remilekun Toyosi[edit]

Million Dollar Round Table[edit]

European Aleph Institute[edit]

Penguin Crime & Espionage[edit]

Keyton[edit]

Jameson Crested Ten[edit]

Paula Surridge[edit]

Shreyash Shandiliya[edit]

Bioinformation[edit]

Osborne, Nipissing District[edit]

Diver, Ontario[edit]

Lash, Ontario[edit]

Niddrie, Ontario[edit]

Morgan, Ontario[edit]

Nasty Boys[edit]

Radiator Springs[edit]

Tyrone D. Bland[edit]

Santa Teresa (fictional city)[edit]

Mac Beathaidh mac Ainmire[edit]

Sirius 26[edit]

Wesley Grammar School[edit]

List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters[edit]

Bahari Ibaadat[edit]

Baruda[edit]

2021 Muskogee shooting[edit]

Harberger Tax[edit]

Ailem Carvajal Gómez[edit]

Leave a Reply