Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< January 01 January 03 >

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 redirect‎ to Freshwater, California. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freshwater Corners, California[edit]

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

Non-notable location; appears to just be an intersection with a store. No other information found. PROD was declined, but without other information that the two cited sources (which are insufficient for notability), this is a failure of WP:GEOLAND. The user who contested my PROD suggested a redirect to Freshwater, California, which I guess I could live with as an alternate, but this is such an obscure and non-notable spot I don't really see the point. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked for book and newspaper coverage. Only thing I found was this article from 1977 talking about flooding in the area. Not enough to meet WP:GEOLAND. Jfire (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are numerous mentions in the local paper (The Times Standard, Eureka) from around 1900 - 1977. The county website has pages that mention it, flooding usually. The place is inherently flood prone, and is occasionally described as a town. There isn't news coverage from regional papers that I saw, certainly not national. It's hard to prove though because of the common name, and the abundance of places called "corners". I can't find any online sources that name it as a current city or town in Humboldt county. It seems an informally named area and comprises the the cluster of buildings in the NE section of the intersection. James.folsom (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteDelete or redirect to Freshwater, California Based on the evidence provided, it cannot be shown to be notable due to lack of sources to completely satisfy WP:GEOLAND or WP:NJames.folsom (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The town is Freshwater, California. The physical geography is that of Freshwater Creek. And the logging is that of the Pacific Lumber Company (now Humboldt Redwood).

    This really isn't anything except the site of a store that is not called Freshwater Corners, and (at least according to one thing that I read) a proposed (back in 2016) bus stop (also not named Freshwater Corners, but named after the store, and described as being on the Old Arcata Road rather than in relation to a "Freshwater Corners"). No source gives more than a passing mention of this, nor any clue as to what the thing was here that was actually named Freshwater Corners that caused that name to be on a map.

    Uncle G (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I should point out Special:Diff/291564372 where in classic Wikipedia fashion an editor tried to point out in the article that there's nothing actually named this and this isn't used as anyone's address, back in 2009. Uncle G (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the April 1959 edition of the magazine Progressive Architecture (Page 188) there is a feature for an elementary school designed by William M Van Fleet for the Freshwater Elementary School District in Freshwater Corners, California. Unless there is another Freshwater Corners in California I'm willing to say that the place was populated at least in the 1950's. Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Freshwater, California. Freshwater is the community, this is just a particular place (or, sure, neighborhood around the intersection) within it and not notably distinct. Reywas92Talk 22:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. This locale is only notable at a (very) local level, if that. TH1980 (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Freshwater, California per WP:CHEAP Lightburst (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Freshwater, California. I'm seeing enough usage in news articles to justify a redirect. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McCandless, Kansas[edit]

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

The last of the mass-created Franklin County post offices (you can certainly tell here because they forgot to change the name of the place in the body of the article: it still says "Dennison"). No there there, deleted GNIS entry, you know the drill. Mangoe (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Listed as an extinct town here: https://legendsofkansas.com/franklin-county-extinct-towns/ Though I believe this link is really just a list of post offices, and the author doesn't really understand the situation. I searched the three local papers that cover the area and found no mentions of the place. Though in 1906 there was blurb about postmaster McCandless painting his post office in Princeton. It cannot be notable if the local papers don't mention it.James.folsom (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In a previous discussion in which I improperly nominated the article for deletion, Uncle G claimed this is a "largely undocumented claimed rural post office". They found "zero sources [...] indicating any sort of population centre." Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all of the above. TH1980 (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mullingar Park Hotel[edit]

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

With regret, as this is a fairly nicely-made article, I just do not see any evidence of notability, i.e. fails WP:GNG. It's just another hotel, in a country with hundreds. And there was a tragic event but with respect, that's not a reason for inclusion (nor the welder case). The lede and body need to show why this hotel is special enough to appear (in all of Ireland, I'd say that's true of maybe 10-12 hotels). Normally, I'd say this would at most be an item in a list in the Mullingar article. SeoR (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid any confusion or unnecessary debate, I also see no evidence of meeting WP:NORG, WP:BUILDING, or any other article threshold. In general, individual small to medium businesses at most rate a mention in a local article, or in a list not subject to article-required rules. SeoR (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have stayed in Irish hotels. I am not expert on hotel notability. But "10-12 hotels" in all of Ireland! This is very tiny. There is Dublin (Gresham, Shelbourne, Clarence, Burlington, Merrion, Royal Hibernian, Berkeley Court, Wynn's Hotel, Dublin). I learn here James Joyce knew about Greville Arms Hotel in Mullingar. There is Kerry. There is other cities not in Dublin. I think 10-12 hotels a mistake? Hagesen 22:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little off-topic but relevant to the principle in nominating this - to my mind, it takes a lot to make a hotel notable. I'm not even convinced about at least 2 of the current Dublin ones, and I'd say they're are a few in Cork, Kerry, Limerick, Galway, etc. - but this includes ones where the building is notable, and the hotel aspect incidental. Maybe the casual 10-12 is too low, but I seriously doubt the number reaches even middle double digits, however broad the criteria, and there are over 1,500 hotels licenced in Ireland, and almost 150 in Northern Ireland, so it's a low percentage, and that's fine. Others, if large, active or slightly notable, can be mentioned in their locality's article. And I do believe that this particular hotel simply does not make the cut. SeoR (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I thought they all had notability. But at least 2 of the Dublin ones are not! Is it Shelbourne? Or Clarence? --Hagesen 03:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet if you could create an article List of hotels in Ireland. Cheers! Chanaka L (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I am not trying to blow my own trumpet here. But kindly have a look at List of hotels in Sri Lanka, to get an idea. Chanaka L (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
"Why do we need this article at all?" Answer is someone on User talk:Stardomax - from WikiProject Sri Lanka? --Hagesen 21:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator SeoR writes "this is a fairly nicely-made article" and "an item in a list" is possible. Two days pass. It is written "I do not think that a redirect would be appropriate" - but that is all? Appropriate? What? I cannot find the Wikipedia:Appropriate guideline.
I hope the person who made the page can make List of hotels in Ireland better – later (yesterday I did some work to make a better target for now).
But he/she/they stopped work - because of all this? I do not know for sure. They have no edits after 2 January. When this page opened. Do they know what is happening?
They say they "have a great passion for helping others, and creating articles for others to learn" (user page) – so they make a page. A different page. Someone questions on their talk page. Then another page (this one) is nominated instead. One hour later.
It must be like they are under attack from everywhere - here, talk pages, edit summarys. Awful. I think this is lots for one person. Too much. It is their fault too they make a list that a person from Sri Lanka WikiProject asked to make? See above.
Maybe it is an accident. Maybe mistakes made by everyone. But if they feel miserable and cannot work right now? I think they can have 1 chance to work and make Wikipedia better - they cannot fix 1-2-3 problems at once?
Assume good faith is gone? Sad...
Redirect is fair result for everyone I think? Hagesen 22:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Flower[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dagiero Dagiero[edit]

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

Not a notable athlete. Unable to find SIGCOV in reliable sources. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Oceania. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ran as fast as a reasonably fast 14 year-old boy, had a quota entry to the World Championships, but a lack of athletic achievements means a lack of significant in-depth coverage. Should ideally be redirected to Nauru at the World Championships in Athletics, whence the useless Nauru at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics should ideally be merged. Geschichte (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to find much coverage at all, which is understandable considering his athletic achievements (or lack thereof). JTtheOG (talk) 05:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thank you for nominating this article because it allows us to improve it together. This article was mistakenly AfD'ed based on a misunderstanding of the sources used. In Special:Diff/1192007359, User:InvadingInvader tagged and later removed the Fiji Sun reference in the article referring to WP:RSP. However, WP:RSP does not mention The Fiji Sun at all -- the only similar entry is for WP:THESUN, which specifically notes it only applies to the UK Sun and not to the separate newspaper The Fiji Sun. Unless a decision specifically about The Fiji Sun is made at WP:RSP, I don't think it was appropriate to remove that source while an AfD is being made specifically about lack of sources. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Sun is still a tabloid. Because they have very similar logos and editorial styles, the UK Sun, US Sun, and Fiji Sun should be treated as one and the same. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @InvadingInvader, thank you for your response. That may be your opinion, but it is not the opinion of the Wikipedia community at WP:RSP. If that was applicable, the entry at WP:THESUN would say "The Sun (all editions)" or just "The Sun" instead of specifically "The Sun (UK)" as it does. Looking at the discussion, it seems like The Fiji Sun was never mentioned at all as it is a separate newspaper, so claims about that paper need to be made on their own merits instead of by association with the UK Sun. --Habst (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If The Sun has been marked as unreliable, let alone deprecated, it is reasonable to assume that all editions of The Sun are not to be trusted. In this case, we don't AGF on sources. If a source is contested, as I am now, especially on a BLP article, don't include it. Per BLP, be very firm on the usage of high quality sources. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @InvadingInvader, it is one thing to assume that all newspapers named The Sun are not to be trusted if WP:THESUN just said "The Sun", but it doesn't say that -- it says "The Sun (UK)" specifically, and it excludes fijisun.com.fj from its list of affected domains to search for in the rightmost column. What is your rationale for contesting The Fiji Sun? Looking at the home page, it appears to be mainly local news and not sensationalist or inaccurate coverage. Compare with the UK Sun's home page. --Habst (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you verify the stories' accuracy? Perhaps cross-referencing in other Fijian papers? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @InvadingInvader, thank you for scrutinizing our sources because it's important to use reliable citations. I couldn't find any contradictory or false information in any of the stories from my overview. I honestly do not think that The Fiji Sun is comparable to the UK Sun in terms of sensationalist coverage. --Habst (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And furthermore why does he deserve to have his article not deleted? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @InvadingInvader, this article would deserve to be kept if there are reliable sources discussing the subject. I don't think it was the correct decision to remove a source discussing the subject from the article, while a deletion discussion is ongoing about sources. --Habst (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you find any other SIGCOV that doesn't come from a tabloid? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @InvadingInvader, thank you for responding. The goal of a deletion discussion should be to find coverage. Often times mentions in other articles can be a jumping off point to find that coverage, which is why I don't think it was appropriate to remove the Fiji Sun article, which I would not classify as tabloid journalism. --Habst (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any other SIGCOV you can find? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting but this discussion may be ended before the coming week is over. Additional sources could change the balance of this discussion but given the hundreds of other AFDs I've seen on athletes and sportspeople over the past three years, this is not looking promising.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Zero coverage that I can see here. The Fiji Sun article has a trivial namedrop in a list, it contributes nothing.
JoelleJay (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for responding. I found another non-database source which I added to the page, which covers Dagiero and confirms at least one fact in the article. I don't know Czech, so maybe there is more to be found on that website? What do you think about the new source? --Habst (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new source also contains a trivial passing mention. He does not appear in any other IDNES articles. JoelleJay (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is insufficient coverage that is significant in multiple sources that are considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. Daniel (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Dunnavant[edit]

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

Not seeing significant coverage from reliable sources which are independent of the subject. The sources in the article Some trivial mentions (e.g. [1][2]), and he certainly is covered in non-independent sources (e.g. [3][4][5]). There is one source from NatGeo (which is explained in Justin Dunnavant § National Geographic) which appears to check all the boxes, but we need multiple sources for notability.

I will also note that this article was created with WP:WIKIED – to the creator, please let me know if anything in this nomination is not clear and I would be more than happy to assist! HouseBlastertalk 22:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

  • Delete I agree with WP Toosoon. Also the page looks like written from a fan’s point of view - not a good case for Wikipedia biography. --FightBrightTigh (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Atlas[edit]

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

Training exercise that does not have any last historical significance and only received WP:ROUTINE coverage. Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I don't see in the page history that this article was previously nominated at an AFD though that is mentioned in the discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasant Hill, Kansas[edit]

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

Another "ghost" town, i.e., a cemetery which was probably not the actual location of the eponymous post office. I've nominated it along with the following:

Garlington, Kansas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

... because they are the same "place", even though they are somewhat over 2 miles (3.2 km) from each other. But they are the "same" post office, which is to say, it's another case of a 4th class PO moved from one place to another. Both deleted from GNIS, no "there" (except a lot of dead people), not settlements. Mangoe (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Pleasant hill is mentioned many times without a state name in the local papers for Ottawa Kansas. Many turn out to be in Missouri.James.folsom (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteBoth of these places lack sources to establish their notability.James.folsom (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncle G provided the following information in a previous discussion. Garlington is named as a village in Gannett 1898, p. 93, though it "only gives gazetteer details". Pleasant Hill: Pleasant Hill is a hamlet; Blackmar 1912, p. 482 "gives a few facts". I previously incorrectly nominated to delete both articles. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Indian Penal Code. There isn't 100% agreement here but there is a sufficient rough consensus to close as a Redirect. If editors want to spend time Merging content to another article, please propose it on the redirect talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Law in India[edit]

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

The three criminal laws applicable in India, IPC, CrPC and IEA have their own respective article pages. This article serves no purpose and appears like a poorly worded, duplicate article. WP:BIT applies.

Note: The new laws replacing erstwhile IPC, CrPC and IEA which are BNSS, BNS, BSA-2023 have their own articles as well. Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IPC, CrPC, IEA, BNSS, BNS, BSA-2023 Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Because there are three criminal laws and each law has its own article, redirecting just to any one article would again appear messy. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote. Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by an exceptionally wide margin. There is an exceptionally large number of books and periodical articles on Indian criminal law, and they treat it as a single unified topic, and many are entirely and specifically about Indian criminal law as a whole. The summary style is not a content fork. We need to have an article that is an overview of Indian criminal law generally. The six statutes linked to do not contain the whole of Indian criminal law. There was criminal law in India before any of the statutes listed were enacted. For example, the Criminal Law (India) Act 1828 (9 Geo 4 c 74) was a (very lengthy) compilation of criminal law provisions from earlier statutes. There are many other Indian statutes that contain provisions that form part of the criminal law. India is a common law country, which means that roughly on the order of half the criminal law consists of judicial precedents (see eg [6][7] amongst other works, and the books of reports of cases might run to a much larger number of pages than the books of statutes). That case law is not part of any statute. There are principles of criminal law that go beyond the wording of a single specific statute, and it is entirely possible to analyse and classify criminal laws in a way that does not consist of discussing the whole of one statute at a time. Indeed, it is necessary to adopt this approach for a country that still has many uncodified offences. If there is no overview article, it will be impossible for readers to find most of the criminal law of India. We need this article for navigation. A redirect to the penal code is especially inappropriate, because the criminal procedure code, and all the other statutes creating criminal offences, are as much a part of the criminal law as the penal code is. James500 (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the avoidance of doubt, I am not aware of any actual original research in this article in its present revision (which I last edited several minutes ago). The article contains verifiable content not included in the other articles, and a great deal more can and should be added. James500 (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the avoidance of doubt only: The following books about Indian criminal law were published before 1860, and their content has nothing to do with the Penal Code of 1860, or any of the criminal procedure codes: John D Mayne, A Treatise on the Principles and Practice of Criminal Law, 1st Ed, 1859 Catalogue, Preface to 1st Ed of 1859 reprinted in 2nd Ed of 1865; Baynes, The Criminal Law of the Madras Presidency, 1848: [8]. 1858 [9]; Beaufort, A Digest of the Criminal Law of the Presidency of Fort William, 1850, [10]. 2nd Ed, Pt 1, 1857 [11], Pt 2, 1859 [12]. There are also chapters on criminal law in Morley's Analytical Digest, 1850 [13]; and on criminal judicature in his Administration of Justice in British India, 1858 [14]. A history book covering the pre-1860 period is Banerjee, Background to Indian Criminal Law [15]. There are chapters on criminal law in general works on Indian legal history covering the pre-1860 period, such as Banerjee's English Law in India [16]; chapter 16 of Sinha's Legal History of India is "History of Criminal Law . . . in India before . . . the Indian Penal Code" [17]; chapter 26 of Mittal's An Introduction to Indian Legal History is "Criminal Law before . . . Penal Code" [18]; and so on. WP:DETCON says "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy". James500 (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, James500; those are excellent citations to add to and expand the History section of Indian Penal Code, which covers the legislative status prior to 1860. Owen× ☎ 13:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the avoidance of doubt only: The "History" section of the IPC article is presently entirely concerned with the drafting of that Code. It says nothing about the pre-1860 laws. James500 (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right, hence my use of the word "expand". A brief historical review of the status of criminal law in India prior to 1860 is relevant to the IPC article, but does not, I believe, justify a standalone article. the fact that both Sinha and Mittal bundle their coverage of the 1828 Act and other pre-1860 laws under the single heading, "before the Indian Penal Code" suggests to me that the material can justifiably be included in the History section of the IPC article. Owen× ☎ 14:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In all fairness, what the chapters in Mittal and Sinha actually establish is that the topic of "History of Indian criminal law before 1860" satisfies GNG in its own right. The logical inference is that the "before the Penal Code" language indicates that Mittal and Sinha are treating that period of history as distinct from, and irrelevant to, the history of the IPC (which does not begin before the First Law Commission started drafting the IPC). Mittal treats the penal code as part of his chapter 27 on "Law Commissions and Codification" (notice the IPC does not even get its own chapter in either book). Similarly Sinha has chapter 12 on "Codification in British India" and chapter 13 on "The Indian Law Commissions . . .". I think, however, that retaining this article would be more practical than creating "History of Indian criminal law before 1860" from scratch. James500 (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect makes the most sense in this case. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A redirect would make the least sense, because the penal code is not the same thing as the criminal law. In fact, the penal code is not even close to being the same thing as the criminal law. Redirecting this page to the penal code of 1860 would be worse than redirecting United Kingdom to England, because this article has much less overlap with the articles on its subtopics, and the articles on its subtopics don't cover anything close to the whole of the parent topic. James500 (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects aren't to a page that is the same thing. The target is an existing page that we believe will best serve a reader searching for that term. Of course the criminal system in India is more than just the 1860 Act. However, the article about the Act contains not only relevant information, but also links to the criminal procedure and evidentary laws.
    Everything in this page is already covered in other articles here, better written articles with better sourcing. I'm not convinced we need a top-level page about criminal law in India, especially if it's a content fork, but if you want to turn it into a DAB page rather than a redir, I'll support. Owen× ☎ 17:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The penal code and criminal procedure code articles do not include everything in this article. They do not, for example, mention the offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Food Adulteration Act, the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 or the Defence of India Act.
    More importantly, the penal code and criminal procedure code articles do not include, and probably could not include, a large number of criminal laws that are not part of those codes (and are not amendments to those codes). Where, for example, are we supposed to put the Admiralty Offences (Colonial) Act, 1849 and the Admiralty Jurisdiction (India) Act, 1860 (which are apparently still used in cases of piracy)? Where are we supposed to put the Act of 1828 [19], let alone the earlier Acts that were repealed by it [20]? Where are we supposed to put the pre-1860 criminal statutes and pre-1882/1973 criminal procedure statutes (some of which were repealed long before 1860 or 1882/1973)? Where, for example, shall we put these Acts (which applied to India in addition to the code)? Where are we supposed to put rules of common law? And all the other criminal laws.
    The penal code and criminal procedure code articles are not particularly well written either. All of these articles need to be greatly expanded and to some extent rewritten. James500 (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True, the proposed target Criminal Law in India doesn't mention the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 or the Defence of India Act. Each of those have their own page. We can certainly add these specific acts to the "See also" section in the target. The Criminal Law in India article doesn't tell us anything about these laws other than that they exist. This could be handled just as well in a DAB. Or better yet, a category such as Category:Criminal Law in India - we have enough separate articles to make such a category useful.
    The "History" section of our page is currently talking only about the IPC. If there's anything in it that isn't covered by the History section at the target, let's merge it into the target. The "Issues with IPC" section, in its current form, isn't encyclopedic. Perhaps a rewritten "Criticisms" section, with more than just one TV show as source, would do a better job, but those should go into the individual articles about the respective act they address. Criticism not aimed at a specific Act should go into Law of India.
    You asked, Where are we supposed to put the pre-1860 criminal statutes. I think the natural place for that is in the History section of the IPC article.
    If the Admiralty Offences (Colonial) Act, 1849 and the Admiralty Jurisdiction (India) Act, 1860 are notable, they deserve their own article. If they aren't notable, perhaps a mention in Piracy#South_Asia would suffice.
    As to rewriting the IPC and the criminal procedure code articles, I agree, and I'm happy to leave that rewriting in your capable hands, James500. Owen× ☎ 20:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting Acts in a "see also" section fails to explain what their relevance is. The present article at least tells us they create offences. A law book would normally try to group related offences together. For example, the Defence of India Act, 1915 was held to be in pari materia with "An Act for the prevention, trial and punishment of offences against the State" (Act 11 of 1857). Presumably both could be put under the heading of "offences against the State", on that basis, if they remain in this article. That would more informative than putting them in a list of miscellaneous statutes in random order.
    I support the creation of a category, but I must point out that it is WP:NOTDUP.
    I have removed the "Issues with IPC" section for the time being.
    I do not think that criminal statutes repealed in 1828 should be included in the IPC article, since the code was passed more than thirty years after they disappeared. I think their inclusion would be an anachronism and irrelevant to a code passed in 1860. I do not think the history of the IPC includes the whole history of the criminal law.
    I could put the Admiralty Acts in Piracy, but how would readers be able to reach that page from the IPC article (which gives no indication that piracy is an offence in India)?
    Even if we resolve all of these particular problems, how are we going to fit a large number of statutes into the IPC article without swamping it? James500 (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I got my law education from textbooks arranged by course topic: Common Law, Criminal Law, etc.; I'm assuming you did as well. The arrangement you describe follows that pattern. However, Wikipedia is not a textbook. There is no editorial onus on us to make sure the reader finds out about the Admiralty Acts unless they specifically search for it.
    That said, I think a navigation template accompanying Category:Law of India, similar in style to Template:Taxation_in_India or Template:Law enforcement in India, subdivided into Constitutional, Criminal, Civil, Administrative, etc. would provide the reader with an easy way to navigate through all the relevant topics under the broad umbrella of the legal system in India, and would be far more useful than the current attempt to aggregate all criminal-law-related articles in one introductory page. Would you be interested in building such a template? Let me know if you need my help. Owen× ☎ 22:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Encyclopedias like "Halsbury" also follow the pattern I described. I do not think they are intended to teach or instruct. What WP:NOT actually says is that WP articles should not contain "leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples". I do not think that navigation links, or a logical arrangement, or an arrangement that happens to facilitate navigation, constitute teaching or instruction. James500 (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a rough consensus to Redirect this article but also strong opposition to that move. I think this discussion would benefit from a little more time to iron out the existing differences of opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect for now per above, but I think an overview article can be written that summarizes each of the laws and links to the appropriate pages using {{main}} hats. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirecting the page would make it harder to create such an overview article. The reason I have not attempted to expand the article with the many missing laws etc is because people keep !voting for redirection; and especially because they keep !voting for redirection without, as far as I can see, citing any applicable policy or guideline. Editors will be reluctant to expand a (redirect or article) page on a notable topic if they think the community might respond with a WP:BLAR; and they will be especially reluctant to expand such a page if they think the community might respond with a WP:BLAR for content reasons that do not seem to be based on any particular policy or guideline (which makes it unclear what the community wants), and which seem to impose a deadline on expansion and improvement. Further, redirection will also impair the development of the missing articles and article content in this area of the project, since it will eliminate the list of criminal laws. James500 (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    James500, how about the following compromise: we Merge the article into the Law of India#Criminal law section, with the same depth we did with the Tax law section there, leaving the current page as a redirect to that section. If the section grows too large for embedding in Law of India, it will be spun off back into this page, with the original page history intact. This way, you can keep improving the Criminal law section under the parent page at your leisure, without having the sword of AfD hanging over you. The question of standalone notability can be readdressed once content and sourcing are at a more mature state. Sounds workable? Owen× ☎ 13:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no question about the standalone notability of this topic. Do you want me to go through the books and periodical articles on Indian criminal law, one at a time, and explain the extent to which they are not about the Penal Code of 1860 (or the criminal procedure codes, for that matter)? The topic is not a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the Penal Code, because that guideline applies to "2 articles about the exact same thing", and the Penal Code is significantly less than half the criminal law. Conversely, criteria 2 and 3 of the information page WP:NOTMERGE do apply. I do not wish to risk becoming involved in a cycle of merging, splitting, re-merging, re-splitting, and arguing about whether there is "enough" wikipedia content to split. The purpose of GNG is to prevent the merger of stubs on notable topics. James500 (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am no longer talking about the Penal Code of 1860. My latest proposal to you is to merge the contents as a section in Law of India, seeing as consensus here is tending towards not keeping the article as a standalone page. I thought you would find my compromise appealing, seeing as it offers us the opportunity to continue improving the contents, albeit as a section in a bigger article. Regardless of what is the correct outcome, inflexibility and resistance to compromise makes it difficult to work on crowdsourced, consensus-driven projects like Wikipedia. Please reconsider. Owen× ☎ 16:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not offered a compromise, and it is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY for me to edit the article Law of India. I intend to withdraw from this discussion now. James500 (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radiya River[edit]

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

Fails WP:NATFEAT. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was ‎ Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

When the Dark Man Calls[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NFILM. Source in article is a database listing, BEFORE found listings, promo ads, and name mentions, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS: WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  21:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Karen Crowther. czar 00:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redwood Games[edit]

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

Article is about a non-notable development team and relies on two possibly primary sources for its information, and it has been this way since 2007. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing extra, so even if these sources weren't primary, it'd still be a WP:N failure per the WP:THREE recommendation. NegativeMP1 22:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A self-promo article that has sit forgotten for decades. -- ferret (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think those sources meet the WP:RS standard, so it's just a vanity article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious COI article. Not much about the studio can be found, even in gaming magazines. I cannot rule out that news articles may exist, but the article creator must demonstrate that and didn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Karen Crowther and expand. Based on the articles shown, it appears to be her that is notable, not the studio label she operates under. I assume she didn't make an article on herself because she wanted to promote her game label, but it's clear from the sources it's a one-person label. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review newly found sources and consider Move suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Karen Crowther. Sources presented by DigitalIceAge meet WP:GNG marginally. I'd additionally consider her to be notable per WP:AUTHOR. PaulT2022 (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge into Karen Crowther. I agree with PaulT2022 and Zxcvbnm; the sources meet GNG for Karen Crowther rather than Redwood Games. The abstract for the 1000+ word article starts with "Features Karen Crowther of Redwood Games Inc", and the Ukiah Daily Journal article is about her achievements, mentioning that she "recently" founded Redwood Games. I think a redirect would be more appropriate, so I boldly went ahead and started an article so that there was something to redirect/merge into, if needed. - Whisperjanes (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Karen Crowther because it's borderline but is probably a good addition there. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Pōrangahau River. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Island (Hawke's Bay)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NATFEAT. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "A baseline survey of the indigenous bird values of the Hawke's Bay coastline" (PDF). Hawke's Bay Regional Council. July 2021.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norbu (sweetener)[edit]

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

Not notable as far as I can tell - I can only find passing mentions and user-generated content. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 21:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SS Clarence[edit]

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

Non-notable steam lighter. Article is sourced to one period newspaper report about her wreck, with no details. Modern sources appear non-existent bar a blogspot post that describes the ship as "a barge-like vessel used to transport goods to and from large cargo ships". No significant coverage of the ship (or its wreck), and no identified reliable secondary sources. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feminine essence concept of transsexuality[edit]

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

The article should be deleted under WP:DEL-REASONs 5, 6, and 8.

It was previously discussed and kept at AFD in 2009, mostly based on claims of enough RS, but the OR making up the majority of the article was recently removed per a talk page discussion. Relevant to note, the article's creator has a COI with Bailey and Blanchard and is notable for promoting fringe viewpoints on trans issues. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as simply a POVFORK. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 22:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the aforementioned reason of any actual information here not being a distinct topic from Gender identity. At most if there's any useful content merge and redirect to Blanchard's transsexualism typology. Galobtter (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Galobtter, the subject of this article is supposed to be the idea (NB: not the term) of a woman trapped in a man's body, which is the opposite of Blanchard's transsexualism typology. It is the story that trans women had to tell their psychologists (plural, because they had to convince two of them that they believed this) in the 1980s and 1990s, or they'd be denied access to gender-affirming medical treatment. Do you think that's the same as just Gender identity in general? Or maybe Gender essentialism? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the article as it exists, both before the recent removals and now, is not really about the story - there was only a small section on it before the removals. It is mostly about Blanchard and his supporters arguing against the concept in general. And I think gender identity/gender essentialism is the right article to talk about someone feeling they are different gender than their body (i.e. a woman trapped in a man's body) and how they might describe it.
    But yeah I guess a redirect might not be right, even if the article as it stands right now is about Blanchard arguing against this, and the specific term of "feminine essence" seems a Blanchardism. Galobtter (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's an NPOV tag at the top of the article, and I suspect it, or other tags like it, is deserved. Ever since Blanchard published something that re-cast the familiar old narrative in theoretical terms (which is what you'd need to do if someone wanted to do serious research on the subject), we've had problems with POV pushing about it. It's taken significant work by several editors just to keep the article from being any worse than it is.
    @Aquillion, I see you saying something similar. What exactly about Blanchard's typology makes you think that woman trapped in a man's body has anything to do with it? The subject itself goes back at least to Ulrich's anima muliebris virili corpore inclusa, and the fact that Blanchard happened to write something about it does not mean that it's his idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As you say, the term and its use significantly predate Blanchard's work. That to me suggests that the redirect for woman trapped in a man's body is targeted at the wrong article. What the correct target for that redirect should be I don't know right now. I'd need to have a look at sources, and ultimately that may be something better discussed at RfD.
    Depending on the sources, there may be sufficient coverage to write a broader historical article about how trans women had to use that concept to get healthcare in the 70s-90s, divorced from the strict confines of Blanchard, if such a thing is not already covered in another preexisting article. But I don't think the existence of the redirect should preclude the deletion of this article, if that is where the consensus of this discussion eventually lies. s Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This conversation is where the idea for the article started. There were two competing stories at that time. The first was that trans women had some essential quality that made them be true women. Depending on the times/culture, the named quality might be ineffable (e.g., "a woman's soul" during the Victorian era) or physical (e.g., "brain sex"/gender identity is neurologically determined) or something else, but whatever it was, it wasn't genital anatomy and it wasn't necessarily the cause/etiology (in the sense that we'd use that term in a medical article), but it was the thing that makes all women (cis and trans) actually be women. The second story was Blanchard's taxonomy. This article is supposed to be about the first story. A merge/redirect to the story it competes with would be a way of erasing its existence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But this is exactly what I'm talking about below. This is a classic example of a false dichotomy. Having "a woman's soul", having a "female brain", neurologically determined gender identity, and the idiom of being "a woman trapped in a man's body" are four different things, no matter whether Blanchard thinks they all sound similar to him. Loki (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're all basically gender essentialism, no? "All real women have women's souls/women's brains/women's ____, and I have one of those, so that makes me a real woman", right?
    I agree that the words "woman trapped in a man's body" is not the same as the idea communicated with those words. Articles, including this one, are generally supposed to be about the ideas, not about the words. The article at Cancer is about a fact of reality, not about the words we use to describe that reality; Woman trapped in a man's body should also be about a fact of reality, not about the words we use to describe that reality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, no? For one, "woman trapped in a man's body" really is just a phrase. It's an idiom that conveys, basically, just the concept of being trans itself.
    "Women's soul" is certainly gender essentialist, and having a "female brain" is arguably essentialist, but having a neurologically determined gender identity isn't essentialist either. This is why I feel it's so important to distinguish these concepts from each other and why this article ought to be deleted as, again, a strawman Blanchard made up by mashing a bunch of concepts together. Loki (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that these are meaningfully different, and I think that "woman trapped in a man's body" is better described as an explanatory narrative than as "just a phrase". This book calls it the wrong body discourse. This one calls it "the wrong body trans* narrative", and condemns it for being "safe and understandable from a cisgender perspective". This one calls it "a transgressive narrative" that "became the definition of trans femininity during the modernist period despite" being wrong. This one calls it "the 'wrong body' narrative" and says that it was medically constructed and imposed on trans folk by medical gatekeepers. This one also calls it "the wrong body narrative" and says that trans folk differ on whether it is imposed involuntarily on them. This one calls it "a popular experential discourse". This one calls it a "discourse" and says it wasn't a common discourse in Fiji (where one can be "a woman inside" without feeling "trapped in a man's body"). I didn't see any that said it's "just an idiom". Do you have sources saying that it's just words and not a narrative? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only significant sources for the article seem to be from advocates of the Blanchard typology who use the idea as a straw man. The original author of the article is also part of the small group that advocates for the Blanchard typology. The sources even after cleanup are from these few advocates (Bailey, Blanchard), not mainstream independent reliable sources. The article subject does not meet criteria for general notability as defined in WP:GNG. Hist9600 (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hist9600, if what the article currently describes is a strawman, what do you think the non-strawman description would say differently? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why that is relevant to this discussion. There is a lack of objective evidence that the subject of this article is generally notable. Just because a metaphor or analogy may have been occasionally used, does not mean that Wikipedia needs an encyclopedia article about it (WP:GNG). Hist9600 (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you looked at the prior Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminine essence theory of transsexuality? We decided back then that there was objective evidence that the subject of this article was generally notable, and there won't be fewer sources available now than there were back then. Even the editor nominating the article agreed that the subject pre-dated Blanchard's comments on it and that his concern was with who wrote it (it's tricky to balance Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest) and the generally terrible state of the article (WP:TNT). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've read that discussion, and my main takeaway is that some sources were used improperly and should not have been part of the article. The other takeaway was that User:James_Cantor was the main proponent of keeping the article, and that you appear to have been in very close agreement with him on a number of issues. Hist9600 (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ten editors !voted to keep the article, and you've singled out its initial author as "the main proponent of keeping the article", even though he made only one (1) edit to the AFD page, and three others posted more words on the subject than him? Your conclusion doesn't seem logical to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not impressed by a few votes when I see the actual discussion, and the poor rationale. It doesn't even begin to hold up today, nor should it have then. We can see that sources were added inappropriately through a process of original research and synthesis. The sources that actually mention this concept specifically are so limited that they basically boil down to two promoters of the Blanchard typology (Blanchard and Bailey). And as we all know, the Blanchard typology is not mainstream. Hist9600 (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note that the article, an hour before deletion, had almost ten thousand characters removed from it (it was 14k and was taken down to 5k, so about 60% of it removed); see Special:Permalink/1193096414 for a version from before this removal. jp×g🗯️ 06:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel the need to point out that the vast majority of the removal was in this series of recent edits by @Aquillion, and is as mentioned above per consensus on the talk page. The majority of the edit summaries are about removing sources that don't actually relate to the topic, and from what I've seen these descriptions are accurate. Loki (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the nominator did specifically say that the "the OR making up the majority of the article was recently removed per a talk page discussion." Of course if someone wants to contest those removals they can, but I'm confident that overall they were proper - most of the sources simply didn't discuss the idea of "feminine essence" at all. --Aquillion (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've been wanting this article gone for years now. It's clearly a WP:POVFORK of causes of gender incongruence, made by supporters of Blanchard's typology to push their WP:FRINGE theory. If you look on Google Scholar, there are almost no mentions of it, and those that there are all attribute the term to Blanchard. Loki (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment is about "the term". What can you tell us about "the subject", which has gone by a variety of names in different centuries? Where would you describe the narrative that trans women were required to parrot when they wanted to access medical transition before you were born? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that there is a single subject that has gone by a variety of names. I think and have thought for quite a while that term is Blanchard collecting a bunch of separate but facially similar concepts into what looks like a single non-scientific folk tale to strawman his opponents. Each of those names he's subsuming into his strawman actually refers to something different and attempting to collect them is an intellectual mistake. Loki (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The majority of the article previously was WP:OR / WP:SYNTH that strung together unrelated sources in order to present essentially an editor's argument for Blanchard's position; the sources that are actually about the topic aren't sufficient for an independent article. There's essentially only a single paper directly discussing this concept directly, plus a handful of followups, virtually all of them by the same two authors; if it must be covered it could go on Blanchard's transsexualism typology, but the fact that it isn't currently mentioned even there shows how marginal it really is and makes me skeptical of suggesting even a merge. --Aquillion (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per Aquillion. -sche (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, simply a POVFORK from pages such as causes of gender incongruence and gender identity. Noorullah (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge; as @WhatamIdoing pointed out, previous discussions already established the notability of this topic. The information in this article should included somewhere, at least, preferably summarized and without all the strange POV issues. Veilure (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per:
--Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments as nominator:
    • Addressing merging: The article consists almost entirely of primary sources from Bailey/Blanchard (and in once case, Dreger). Their views are considered WP:FRINGE to the extreme, and there is no Wikipedia article that would be improved by shoehorning in their primary opinions.
    • Addressing keeping: As other's and myself have noted, the concept is itself a non-notable strawman that conflates 1) a narrative and 2) all scientific arguments that there is a biological basis for gender identity (though I'm more partial to the earlier term "psychological sex").
      • All arguments towards keeping have relied on claims of notability but 1) the original AFD was including the OR in the citation count, 2) WAID's research is showing the notability of a different topic with a different name, not Blanchard's strawman (though I appreciate it and would be happy to work with them to include the "Wrong Body discourse" in a standalone article or broader one), and 3) google searching "feminine essence" and "trans" returns a lot of sources completely unrelated to the topic and is most likely how the article got filled with OR in the first place.
      • The etiology of transsexuality requires top-tier MEDRS sourcing. Blanchard says[21] Contemporary proponents of this view also generally hold that the female-typical structure of the gender identity center(s) is congenital and Dreger says Thus the trans person has a sort of neurological intersex condition, typically understood to be inborn. The Endocrine society's position[22]: Considerable scientific evidence has emerged demonstrating a durable biological element underlying gender identity.
      • Bailey and Blancard are explicit[23] it's a narrative in their eyes because According to the feminine essence theory, the differences between homosexual and heterosexual transsexuals have no bearing on the origins of transsexualism per se. Here's the CDC's statement[24]: Gender identity and sexual orientation are different facets of identity. Everyone has a gender identity and a sexual orientation, but a person’s gender does not determine a person’s sexual orientation.
    • We have articles already on gender identity, gender essentialism, the Causes of gender incongruence, Sex-gender distinction, and Classification of transsexual and transgender people that cover from a NPOV the various topics Bailey and Blanchard conflated to rail against. This article has never existed as anything other than a poorly-sourced and OR-filled POV rant about how all scientific arguments for a biological basis for transsexuality must be a "narrative" because "according to us [Blanchard and Bailey], any trans woman who's not straight must in fact be transitioning for a different reason than the straight ones". TLDR: there is no way to salvage such an egregious POV-fork of multiple topics written by a FRINGE activist to prop up his FRINGE activist friends. In case my position wasn't clear: delete. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that it's "a different topic with a different name". I think it's the same topic, which has had multiple names. The choice of names can be very political, even within medical/scientific subjects. If a pariah calls it "feminine essence theory", then all the people who need to talk about that subject but want to show their virtue by shunning him are going to come up with a different name. It's still the same story: trans women are trans women because they are in the wrong body, not because they're whatever names Blanchard et al. called them. When the real world uses multiple names for something, we're supposed to have a single article about them – not one for Chronic fatigue syndrome, a separate one for Myalgic encephalomyelitis, a third one for post-viral fatigue syndrome, a fourth one for ME/CFS, and so forth.
    I'd love to see a source that explains how the common and popular (among lay people) wrong body discourse/narrative is significantly different from what Dreger and Blanchard described. Have you found such a source yet? I haven't. I'd rather have the article at a title like Wrong body narrative than under its current title. I think that a good article (which we don't have), outlining the variations, popularity among the Western public, and criticism of it (e.g., that it's fundamentally cissexist and Western), would IMO be valuable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Raber[edit]

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

Lacks any sources that would establish notability, created by an editor with (based on the username) an apparent COI. A WP:BEFORE reveals no useful sourcing, but my visibility to Austrian content is highly limited due to a language barrier. Ljleppan (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Austria. Ljleppan (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless his name has a different spelling in his native tongue (perhaps with diacritical marks and such), I can find no reliable sources about his works or career. The language shouldn't matter anyway, because his own sites use the spelling we see here. Despite a lengthy career it appears that he has not been noticed by the media and all that can be found are his own self-uploads and promotional sites. This article looks like an attempted resume. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His name does not have a different spelling in German; in fact, the entry was salted on de-wiki: [25]. -- asilvering (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrika Tbilisi[edit]

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

fails WP: GNG, drafted because of promotional tone, found its way back and hides it's promotional tone under the design heading Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Comment. Hmm. I was the one who got that draft back into mainspace. Except I left the tag "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement", which has since been removed. Personally, I've been to the city and I know the place is notable. So I would not delete the page, but try to get a neutral view (Moving to drafts, I think, is not the best way to fix an article's tone, as the AfC reviewer's rules instruct not to reject an article when its flaws can be resolved by tagging it). Suitskvarts (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find significant coverage in English sources. That does not preclude the possibility that there is significant coverage in Georgian, however there is no corresponding page in the Georgian Wikipedia - so I can only conclude that this factory is not notable. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article has some statements that suggest notability of the place, for example "Fabrika is considered one of Tbilisi's biggest success stories". I don't really want to try and figure this one out when there is a literal mountain of other articles that are more in need of deleting.James.folsom (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Consensus is that the necessary sources could be added from the Italian version. clpo13(talk) 19:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheikh Tidiane Gaye[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and author-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the sourcing in it.wiki demonstrates notability. Mccapra (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. With no new comments after two relistings, I'm closing this discussion as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Core[edit]

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

See previous discussion. Since Bitcoin Core defines a large part of what Bitcoin is, it makes no sense to have the distinction. In particular, I don't understand how the previous decision was overturned with no discussion Ysangkok (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Ysangkok (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bitcoin: where it is already covered. Owen× ☎ 01:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I recreated the article when I did a massive cleaning of Bitcoin (before, after: Bitcoin). I'm not sure I saw the previous delete discussion. In any case, it happened 3 years ago, a loooong time in the history of Bitcoin. It didn't have many RS back then, it now lists in "Further reading" several centered reliable sources: Kaushal 2017, Van Der Horst 2017, Brakmić 2019, and Groce 2022. We can probably find more RS. Enough for me to keep it. Also, contrary to what Owen× said above, Bitcoin Core is not covered in Bitcoin other than with two brief sentences: Bitcoin Core is among the best known clients. Forks of Bitcoin Core exist such as Bitcoin Unlimited.. There's no point in merging this page into Bitcoin (as it was done before): either we keep it or we delete it (with a simple redirect). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Whitten[edit]

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

Mostly sourced to IMDB. Any sources are routine (Deadline) and only 50 google results. Andre🚐 15:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not finding independent coverage from RS. Fails the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polonia brothers[edit]

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

The sources on this page seem to be almost entirely unreliable and don't indicate notability at all. I did a search and couldn't find any indications of notability besides only two articles about Mark Polonia specifically. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. With the content and sources this article has, I don't really see the reason to delete it. Could be interested in the nominator's reply to the expander, though. Geschichte (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With the sources added by Mushy Yank there is enough to support an article on this subject. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Sharma[edit]

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

I could not start a PROD but this biography fails WP:N, due to a lack of secondary independent reliable sources. Also it was created by someone named Ssharma55. बिनोद थारू (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion due to previous prod.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not convinced the "awards" are notable, and some can't easily even be verified. Putting aside the fairly obvious WP:COI by the the creator (high chance of being the subject themselves), there is no obvious indication this person was, or is, notable. I'd suggest moving the cricketer to this article title also if deleted. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I would have liked to have seen more detailed analyses of the sources provided, but at least one of them has been convincingly rebutted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nagare (web framework)[edit]

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

I couldn't find anywhere secondary reliable independent sources that would confirm notability. Fails WP:NSOFT. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that it was PROD'ed before (in 2021), then the creator contested the decision. The proposer removed the PROD tag and decided to AfD it instead but never did. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. Greenman (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The slant.co review of "general-purpose Python web frameworks usable in production sites" includes a review of Nagare, which mentions a notable (technically significant!) feature: Nagare's innovative use of continuations, for simpler programming flow. Nagare does not appear to be widely used, and the fact that it is written in Python 2, rather than Python 3, means it has fallen behind the times, but WP:NSOFT says, "software with significant... technical importance... are notable even if they are no longer in widespread use or distribution." NCdave (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those reviews are quite outdated as Nagare has been updated to Python 3 and now works with latest CPython. B.orc (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Thanks for that info!! NCdave (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination (fail WP:NSOFT). I find the tribia keep explanation given by NCdave to be very unconvincing. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While Nagare is not one of the main Python frameworks, it's known by the Python community and thus cited in several reviews / comparaisons as:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.
Tooncool64 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mothers FM[edit]

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

No improvement on the declined draft Draft:Desmond Antwi. This article doesn't seem to pass WP:NRADIO, which refers to WP:GNG. I note that the radio station is mentioned in passing in a few reliable sources like GhanaWeb and Ghana Soccernet but we need more than passing mentions for an article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Ghana. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see independent coverage of this radio station, even though it is in the Accra area. I suspect its recent creation is part of the reason. A possible redirect ATD is List of radio stations in Greater Accra Region, though like many lists of its kind that thing is a cruft and spammy links magnet. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't even suggest the redirect target now that I've figured out this is not even a broadcast station. One source lists it at 102.7, but I cannot find mention of the frequency in their social media. The 102.7 frequency in Accra has been licensed to someone, but it's not on air. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work on this. I agree that we're safer not having an ATD and deleting for those reasons. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Soft-deletion not an ideal way forward given how recent the creation is, relisting to form genuine consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and Sammi Brie. Broadcast stations are not inherently notable, but this being a brand new webcast-only station makes it even less likely that it's going to meet GNG in the foreseeable future. It can be recreated if it generates sufficient coverage to be considered notable. Flip Format (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Foula. Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foula Post Office[edit]

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

Non-notable post office. One Google Scholar result, one Internet Archive result, thirteen Google Books mentions. None of these indicate notability of the post office, with there at most being passing mentions of it. Current references are to the Royal Mail website (indicating opening times only) and a photograph of the previous building on geograph.org. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete not seeing the notability of the building or office. Mangoe (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do have good point, perhaps it should be deleted. Neko12345 (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect - I think there has been coverage in the news in the past due to it being the most remote post office in the UK, but I cannot find anything substantially about it other then mentions in coverage of Foula. As there is a photograph of a post office (of a previous building I believe) and very brief mention of the island having a post office, then a redirect to Foula might be worthwhile, though I am not 100% convinced. Whatever the case, I do not see that there is enough coverage for a standalone article. Dunarc (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability established and this is essentially just an article for a local business which while no doubt important historically to the residents of Foula does not meet GNG Coldupnorth (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Foula where it is discussed (including in an image!) as an WP:ATDR. Perfectly fine as a redirect even if it is not notable for purposes of having its own article. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Oberacker[edit]

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

Relatively new article on subject which I'd argue fails to meet criteria of GNG guidelines. A brief google search reveals little outside being mentioned as being involved in a couple of musicals, and doesn't offer much with which to expand the article beyond its present incredibly unsourced stub state. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Theatre, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:CREATIVE, which says that a creative professional (such as a composer and playwright) is notable if he has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work or if his work (or works) has ... won significant critical attention. Also meets WP:GNG which says that subjects that have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject are notable. The following sources demonstrate that Oberacker meets both of these standards.
Jfire (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that list (and the edits to the article you made) very much show there isn't anything close to reaching "significant" work or coverage of the level of warranting a separate article at this point. The most heavily sourced are reviews for two musicals that already have their own articles (and frankly need more detailed review sections) so are most appropriately placed there, which leaves a BLP stub that consists of new material that amounts to a single award they won and a one word mention of another musical they did an adaption of. Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified by Jfire in this discussion such as the significant coverage about him in the Cincinatti Enquiror and lengthy reviews of his works which together amounts to a pass of WP:GNG in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 17:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dennison, Kansas[edit]

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

Yet another Franklin County, Kansas post office, with more of the story in the article. What you see is there is the classic pattern of a 4th class post office being renamed as it jumped from building to building, the final one being, apparently, the Baptist church which appears as far back as the topos and aerials go. Again, it's been dropped from GNIS, and it ought to be dropped from WP. Mangoe (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kansas. Skynxnex (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have found no mention of Dennison in neither the 1890, 1900, 1920, 1940, nor the 1960 census records. There's a one-N Denison, Kansas, but that's in a different county. Similarly, Woodlief was considered a station. History books of the time confirm that Woodlief was considered a post office and station; the post office was on the Woodlief farm. The Woodlief station was later renamed Tauy Station. The Tauy Baptist Church was near Tauy Creek; the church had a "Tauy Ladies' Missionary Circle" group. Tauy is in several sources named a "vicinity", but I found no mention of a hamlet, village, or town under any of the three names. Cram (1902) lists Woodlief on page 230, but with the population listed as "X", indicating a rail or postal site only.Firsfron of Ronchester 20:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are only a handful of mentions for these places in the local paper (ottawa herald), and as we learned from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Coburn,_Kansas these post offices are not necessarily sited in official places. THey were put where they were needed. It even seems a person who runs a big business of some kind may get their own post office.James.folsom (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In a previous discussion in which I improperly nominated the article for deletion, Uncle G claimed this is a "largely undocumented claimed rural post office. Zero sources found indicating any sort of population centre. The Woodlief post office synthesis is not supported by the source in the article, and I've found no connection to the probably notable William H. Woodlief whom I found biographies of in two history books from two different centuries." Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 21:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Plans[edit]

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

Sources are all sponsored posts. A DDG and DDG news search seems to only reveal more sponsored posts such as [26] and [27]. There need to be two sources independent of the subject to meet WP:NORG. Darcyisverycute (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and United States of America. Darcyisverycute (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've previously removed clearly-identified paid placement advertorials from the usual sources, and an obvious "contributor content" piece from a digital marketing agency. I've also removed a blatant SEO blog. Of the remaining sources, I'm not sure an advertorial "Featured Post" on Africa Business Insider, and churnalism from Bologna, Italy are the best sources for a entity "based" in Miami. Looking around elsewhere turns up the absolutely worst SEO and PR garbage. Nothing organic at all. It's a CSC anonymous business with virtual offices in Miami. Not clear how this is notable, and it just seems like ED spam, frankly. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Assertions like "This was a notable virus back in the early 2000s" need to be backed up by sources, or they will be disregarded. Sandstein 20:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shankar's Virus[edit]

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

Not notable as far as I can tell. Every source I can find about it is either self published (and often highly relying on this article) or a Wikipedia mirror. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 16:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 16:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Little to no coverage of this over 20 yr old virus, I can't see the need to keep the article. Sourcing is poor, even with the archived copies used. Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unable to find significant coverage or reliable sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Anything I could find appeared to just be reposts of this article. Article itself is unreliably made, using a meme generator website as a source and containing a made up virus classification. Also claims the virus was ported to Windows 97, which doesn't even exist. Poor article at the best, troll article at the worst. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering all this, it's surprising the article has survived since 2008 without being deleted. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 21:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - This was a notable virus back in the early 2000s. This article should be preserved for historical purposes or maybe merged with another. Sanjev Rajaram — Preceding undated comment added 15:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 17:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sloping forehead[edit]

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

Per WP:NLIST, One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. As the term is a WP:DICDEF, this is the criteria which seems to apply, however I cannot find a source grouping the term under multiple different conditions. Seeing a few of the listed entries, the list inclusion seems to me like original research and I find it concerningly similar to phrenology, although contacting the author they assure there is no connection to phrenology. I am not so inclined to draftify, because the grouping under the dictionary definition symptom does not seem salvageable to me.

Note that while the user who created the article is a sock, the SPI is resolved with the user now editing under only the account Runabout5921 (talk · contribs). I see similar issues with list of conditions with craniosynostosis but would rather see how this AfD goes first. Darcyisverycute (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to let everyone know that if it is not notable enough for continued inclusion then I will not object to the deletion of this article. Runabout5921 (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above, this isn't Wikipedia's job. A non-article by a permanently-blocked sock, by the way. We can't possibly have a list of all conditions for every imaginable symptom: Wikipedia is not a medical dictionary, nor for that matter a diagnosis aid. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Please see article creator User: ViewingHabit, blocked on October 5, 2023 as a sock puppet of User:Ted Shackelford.— Maile (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I noted in my nomination, the SPI was resolved subject to a one account restriction and so this is not eligible for CSD G5, which states any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5 (emphasis added). I know this is a rare case where an SPI was confirmed but only limited to a one account restriction, but I do not think it is relevant to the nomination itself. Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reminder. — Maile (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn after looking at previous AfD. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liberia–Spain relations[edit]

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

Another article almost entirely based on the primary source of the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. These relations lack third party coverage to meet GNG. Also, lacking elements which contribute to notability such as embassies, agreements and trade. The Cooperation section sounds like vague government speak. LibStar (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Plug-in (computing). czar 00:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helper application[edit]

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

As per WP:NOTDICT. The subject is too vague, and definition is just wrong, the source states that it is "an application that adds additional capabilities when necessary." and the external viewer program is given just as an example there. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - per above comment. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per above comments. The two can be used as synonyms: "a particular program called a helper application or a plug-in [...] (O'Reilly)" Rjjiii (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Visible Noise#Bands. For lack of any other proposal... Sandstein 20:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number One Son (band)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NBAND - no clear evidence of any meaningful WP:SIGCOV during a search, including in newspapers from the early 2000s. Not to be confused by another band of the same name. Bungle (talk • contribs) 14:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Visible Noise is a reasonable WP:ATD. As it was recently created, draftifying the article to allow Thermicknight7 to find better sources would also work. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 20:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thermicknight7: Sometimes, it's just not viable to have an article about a subject if they don't meet the necessary criteria for notability. It isn't a negative reflection on the author, if created in good faith. Draft is one option, but if they aren't notable, that is potentially a waste of people's time. Redirect is another option, but I noted the other band by the same name, so the consideration is why we would redirect to the label of one of them but not the other. Bungle (talk • contribs) 23:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 13:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summit, Tippecanoe County, Indiana[edit]

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

Notability not established with substantive sources. I am utterly baffled why my redirect was reverted calling this a "valid village" when this is within incorporated West Lafayette (with coordinates at the airport), not an unincorporated community. Reverter failed to add sources beyond WP:GNIS, which cites an unspecified state DOT map – this does not appear on topo maps! Reywas92Talk 14:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Reywas92Talk 14:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was restored because it has a history as an independent community. I doubt it was always within West Lafayette. Have you checked "all" topo maps? Vsmith (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source????? Yet you reverted it to this false "is an unincorporated community" with no evidence of this "history". While only the topos at https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#13/40.4168/-86.9292 from 2010 and 2013 have a label, that was copied in turn from GNIS (lots of circular junk in some recent ones) and the 2016 update removed it – which did you check that show a community??? Even if it were a neighborhood later incorporated into the city at some point, that doesn't mean it's notable or needs a standalone article. Reywas92Talk 16:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I have no idea where the Indiana DoT got the name "Summit" from, but in any case its appearance on the topos is brief and appears to have been copied in from GNIS and then deleted again. The actual spot is one end of what used to be a small rail yard that seems to have supported the gravel pit or whatever it was to the southeast; otherwise what we have there is the airport and an area of the Purdue campus which seems to have been quite recently cleared of what appear to have been "temporary" residence halls or the like (the road names suggest they were thrown up right after WW II). There's absolutely no reason to think there was anything town-ish here without some supporting text reference. Mangoe (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The history books tell us that there was flight training at the university airport during the war. Our article touches upon it. Uncle G (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the map pin that is on a building of Purdue Airport and saying "valid village" is bonkers behaviour. The even madder thing is that the GNIS has claimed since the 1980s that there is a "ppl" here, somehow mysteriously in what was empty fields in 1930 and an airport from 1934 onwards, according to the several history books of the airport and the university.

    If there had been a village named "Summit" in the middle of the airport hangars, people, Amelia Earhart would have noticed it. Dave Ross bought empty fields, farmland. It's even in a couple of the airport histories that the landing field was accidentally planted with crops one summer. There was no village.

    This is the most utter prima facie falsehood nonsense from the GNIS mess that I have seen, I think.

    Uncle G (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I came up even drier than everyone else, google, google books all, Newspapers.com this was hard too, because the word is common. Sweep this crap out of here now.James.folsom (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Vsmith's latest crusade is updating all the "old" GNIS ids with a newer one, I don't understand the details. But, looking at the history of the article, he reverted it for the sole purpose of updating the coords and the GNIS id. So his assertion that it's a valid community is based on GNIS entirely, he's just a competitionist obsessed with GNIS. Somebody might want to warn him.James.folsom (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Apologies to Vsmith, I'm trying to learn to do better.James.folsom (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was thinking about what I learned going through the 19th century papers. There were two general uses of Summit in common use to refer to a place. One was the The Summit of Indiana which is where the divide that causes water to flow either into the gulf of mexico or the great lakes lies. It is not near this summit. The other usage is to describe a place where flooding would not occur. Looking at the TOPO; I believe the location of this Summit is that. It's perched on a cliff over the river, so it's not a suitable place to settle because there is no water access for trade. That river I gather, flooded a lot before flood control was implemented. So I think, Summit is where everyone went with their things until the water went down. It's a large flat area above the city that is easily accessible.James.folsom (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thanks to James.folsom for doing a thorough search and finding a plausible origin for this place name. There are no sources supporting that this was ever a village or community of any kind, and it certainly is not one now. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 17:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antigua and Barbuda–Spain relations[edit]

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

Another article almost entirely based on the primary source of the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. These relations lack third party coverage to meet GNG. Most of their interactions are in multilateral forums like CARICOM. LibStar (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Spain, and Caribbean. LibStar (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Yet another example of a standalone article being created for every combination of two nations, no matter how insignificant their connexion may be. The subject is not encyclopaedic, the sources presented are all WP:PRIMARY (government press), and there is no secondary analysis, depth or other indication of notability. I can find no scholarly treatment of this relationship nor mentions in reputable journals. Merging to one or both countries' articles might be possible, but I can find no info particularly worth merging and no sourcing on which to base such a merge. Redir begs the question of which country to redirect towards (and do we really expect this as a search string?). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG, and current sources are just government press releases. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sachi Sri Kantha[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NACADEMIC, contains many peacock terms and lacks external refs other than self authored content. Cossde (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pramod Dubey[edit]

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

Fails GNG and not passes NPOL. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 12:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aijaz Dhebar[edit]

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

Local politician. Fails NPOL. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 12:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar Rondina (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

It does not seem to pass WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:NAUTHOR. MarioGom (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Polyamorph (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter the Painter[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:V in that there do not appear to be sufficient sources to show notability and the sources which do exist appear to suggest that he may not have existed. At best this appears to be a candidate for a complete rewrite making it clearer that it was likely a mythical person. But even if that was done, I'm not sure how it would be possible to verify the details. Maybe there are more details which could be found, but without a study published by a historian on the topic, I don't think this page does much more than to repeat an old rumour. JMWt (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Latvia and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was surprised to see this nomination. Do a Google book search on “peter the painter houndsditch” and you will see plenty of coverage in reliable independent sources. The same search in Google news brings up five stories in the UK press since 2010, demonstrating sustained coverage over more than a century. While his identity is uncertain I don’t think we can assume he was “mythical”, and the uncertainty about who exactly he was, though he was wanted for the murder of three policemen and Winston Churchill took personal charge of hunting him down, was one of the reasons why he has been so widely discussed. Mccapra (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, there is more to read than I thought. I have also found some more sources including this book and this one. It appears that I may be wrong on this one - although these books do emphasise the lack of information and likely mythical status of the person. JMWt (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to say that I've now read sections of three different books - including one about the history of the British Secret Service - which seem to think completely different things about this character - one that it was a soviet spy called Serge, another says he was a peasant called Jaklis arrested by the French police, another says he didn't exist at all.
    I'd still like to hear how it is possible to write a coherent page on this. JMWt (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Crime. Skynxnex (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources and hypothesis of this guy are all over the internet. Was he real? Was Jack the Ripper real? This is one of those historical figures (or legends, take your pick) of England that are so fascinating to read about. Category:People whose existence is disputed is proof that there's room for this article in Wikipedia. With these types, it's even better if the riddle is never solved. — Maile (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Good sources in my opinion. WP:GNG applies as well.BabbaQ (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are plenty of sources, and notability seems to be quite well established. If it needs some expansion and/or rewrite that's a separate issue. - R. fiend (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There has been a lot of study into Peter the Painter, particularly from Philip Ruff whose years (decades even) of research into the man has taken him to Latvia and as far as Australia, culminating in the publication of A Towering Flame. The quality of this page might not be of the best standard, but that alone is not sufficient reason for deletion. The figure clearly meets our general notability guidelines, as pointed out above. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep (withdrawal recommended). I can appreciate that the topic is messy, but with two full-length non-fiction books on the subject, we can write about the mystery just the same. Those volumes constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) For a similar case, see what has been written about the mystery of B. Traven's identity both in books and on-wiki. czar 21:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ due to a lack of participation following three relists. No prejudice towards immediate re-nomination. Daniel (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ralgex[edit]

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

Medical articles should have medically reliable citations - see wikipedia:Why MEDRS? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a borderline case. SailingInABathTub has got us sources for a list of ingredients, and I couldn't find sources for anything more than that, either; with most saying a lot less. This puts us in borderline not-a-directory territory, as this is, literally given the sources that I found which were product catalogues (ISBN 9780747559283 being an A–Z catalogue of drugs that can be bought in stores, for example), product catalogue stuff more than it is encyclopaedia stuff. Uncle G (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎ due to a lack of participation following three relists. No prejudice towards immediate re-nomination. Daniel (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microbicide Trials Network[edit]

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

One source in article seems more about the vaginal gel than the organisation. [28] is arguably not significant coverage. [29] covers two sentences worth and is not significant coverage either. I cannot find any other sources mentioning the organisation. Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Network for Strategic Initiatives in Global HIV Trials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
International Maternal Pediatric Adolescent AIDS Clinical Trials Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Because these two similarly turn up no independent scholar or news search results, and are both stubs.
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice you didn't search on Google Scholar or in paywalled academic journals. There is a decent amount of coverage of the organization and its activities, i.e. [30][31][32][33][34][35][36], which added together would be enough for GNG but probably not NORG.
    I didn't thoroughly research the others, but I would say some sort of merge to an article about HIV/AIDS research would be superior to deletion, since there is encyclopedic content that can be written about them. (t · c) buidhe 06:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I searched on google scholar, DDG and DDG news. I did not do a paywalled journal search. My concern is NORG, as I understand it, these organisations publish plenty of research, and the sources you provide could be used for vaginal microbicide for example. As far as a parent article to merge content, two options are Office of HIV/AIDS Network Coordination and/or Division of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. As can be seen at this image, the web of organisations is big, and these articles I nominated were just the ones in the cluster I couldn't find sources reporting about the organisation itself. Darcyisverycute (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NORG coverage includes coverage of an organization's activities, such as organizing trials of vaginal microbicide (see Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_substantial_coverage). The reason it may not count isn't because the content is irrelevant but it may not be in depth enough for NORG. While it's not necessarily trivial to find a merge target, WP:Alternatives to deletion should be considered before an AfD if there is encyclopedic content worth preserving. I would support merging any of these to a parent/sponsoring organization or to HIV/AIDS research (t · c) buidhe 07:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is what I meant, significant coverage for a topic unrelated to the org (the study objectives and the topic) and not enough coverage for the org and their specific research practices. On its own, I didn't think the three stubs have enough salvageable content to warrant a merge request since their sources are all either primary or not significant coverage, which is why I chose to nominate. But considering the sources you found, maybe the content is worth keeping through a merge when backed up by secondary sources, even if it's minor on its own. Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Studies run by the org are not "unrelated to the org" any more than reviews of a restaurant's food are unrelated to the notability of the restaurant. (t · c) buidhe 20:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To meet NORG (i.e. WP:ORGCRIT), we need at least two independent, reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. To my understanding, the only difference between NORG and GNG is the condition that the sources are also secondary sources. Studies run by the org are not independent or secondary sources, so they cannot meet ORGCRIT. In any case, NORG generally overrides GNG as NORG is a subject specific notability guideline, although in both cases these are just guidelines and not policies.
    Some restaurant reviews might meet NORG and GNG criteria based on their contents and sources; I am not sure how far to entertain the hypothetical other to say that "it depends". I had a brief glance at the sources you linked, as far as I could tell none of them were both independent and significant coverage. If you still believe the articles warrant keeping, I would kindly appreciate if you could list the top three (or perhaps just one) sources which meet this criteria.
    The source Bluerasberry found is good, although it may not be secondary I am inclined to ignore that if we can find another source of similar quality. I would much rather keep these articles and expand them, and I concur with Bluerasberry that it is unfortunate these kind of orgs avoid media coverage. Darcyisverycute (talk) Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure I started this article years ago. The organization closed in 2021 so there are unlikely to be new sources about the org. The org itself wrote a summary of its history; my guess is that it could have spent and consumed about US$100 million from its existence in 2005-2021, doing about 40 medical research trials in many countries, including 12,000 participants. The best reliable source I found about the org is from small town radio, which is nice and counts, but I always regret that these grand multinational, multigovernmental community research projects avoid all media attention. There are lots of sources about the organization's individual clinical trials and their outcomes. It is common practice on Wikipedia that when an individual artist gets attention for their art but not as a person that we keep the biography. When we have stubby articles like this about organizations which could only be built out by describing their programs but not the org itself, we typically delete. Medical papers do not make for good Wikipedia narratives. This org merged into the HIV Prevention Trials Network, which is much bigger. I could support a deletion or redirect/merge of the wiki content here. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Life Is But a Dream.... Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Life Is but a Dream... Tour[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NEVENT. Tour supporting an album. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are promotional and listings, or mentions related to the album, nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject (the tour) directly and indepth.

No objection to a consensus redirect or a properly sourced and trimmed merge into Life Is But a Dream... album.  // Timothy :: talk  09:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Europe, Canada, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Life Is But a Dream.... Article fails both WP:NTOUR and WP:GNG. HorrorLover555 (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. As always, concert tours are not "inherently" notable enough for their own separate articles just because they happen — the notability of a concert tour travels through the ability to demonstrate cultural and social and artistic impact, not just the ability to list a bunch of venues and set lists. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to respective album article. It was a big album/tour, and there's even some RS coverage, but as is, it still fails NTOURS. There's no need for an article split when there's nothing of substance to document. Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent information society[edit]

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

Page created for a piece of obscure jargon; it doesn't seem to have much traction outside a few niche reports. toobigtokale (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. toobigtokale (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To combine appliances, vehicles, and healthcare like this is far too vague. Reywas92Talk 14:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. toobigtokale (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Tech buzzwords, tech buzzwords, OR, tech buzzwords. Even if this is a distinct concept, I have no idea what it is, based on this article. I can find the term used by a couple of professional organizations and publications: [37], [38]; but it's not clear they're talking about the same thing (and both of those sources appear rather dated). Unless and until someone can put this in plain English this is a case of WP:NEOLOGISM, or close to it.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fadila Mujkić[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this transactional announcement. Everything else is trivial mentions (2017, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Youth council. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Advisory Council[edit]

Youth Advisory Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete A Youth Advisory Council as a concept may be a notable topic, but this current article is extremely poor and cites no references to its claims. I suggest WP:TNT and if someone wants to restart the article in the future, they can go for it. Tooncool64 (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:GNG. The article does contain references in the the form of a reading list. The problems with the article can be resolved through editing per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. There are also a number of notable Youth Advisory Councils on Wikipedia which could be linked in the article. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 03:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. With no new comments after 2 relistings, I'm going to close this as No conensus. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David's Sling (novel)[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The only reference (besides being in a list on Libertarian Futurist Society website saying it was nominated for an award) is the subject book itself. I'd say merge into the author article, but there is really no material to merge. Just self-description sourced to the book itself and unsourced praise written by the wiki-editor. North8000 (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 03:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Ul Arfeen Siddiqui[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. See [39] prior deletion log.

Source eval:
Comments Source
Geneology page 1. "Family & Lineage of Shaykh ul Aalam". Retrieved 2023-12-16.
Conference speaker announcement, nothing WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 2. ^ "Faizan Islam Institute London organized a conference on the arrival of Allama Dr. Pir Sultan Al-Arifin Siddiqui in Britain". Daily Pakistan. 2022-03-28. Retrieved 2023-12-16.
Annoucement about a visit. Fails WP:IS WP:RS no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 3. ^ "Arrival of Sajjad Nasheen Niryan Sharif Pir Sultan Al-Arifin Siddiqui in Britain". jang.com.pk. Retrieved 2023-12-16.
Annoucement about a visit. Fails WP:IS WP:RS no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 4. ^ "pir sultan ul arifeen visited zia ul ummah". World News TV "United Kingdom" (in Urdu). 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2023-12-16.
Annoucement about a visit and speaking engagement. Fails WP:IS WP:RS no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 5. ^ "The three-day Urs will begin today at Dargah Nirian Sharif Tarakhil". dailyausaf.com. Retrieved 2023-12-16.
Annoucement about a visit and speaking engagement. Fails WP:IS WP:RS no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 6. ^ "Pir Sultan-ul-Arfeen Siddiqui (DBA) Visited SEC". Retrieved 2023-12-16.
BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  06:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he is notable. He is current custodian of Nerian Sharif and Chancellor of MIU, MIMC. Notable References: [40], [41], [42], [43] and [44]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teeti7 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC) sock strike. Daniel (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable: sources are reliable like Jung news, Daily Pakistan, word news and aslo from Niwa e Waqt, which i have added recently in the article which was above provided by Teeti but not used as a reference in the article. Skt34 (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC) sock strike. Daniel (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While technically eligible for soft-deletion, the fact this was created only a couple of weeks ago, plus the sockpuppetry here, means unlikely a soft-deletion would 'stick'. Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the source table above, I can't find anything further about this person that would help. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hwang Byung-ju[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage, article not fleshed out and probably won't be for a long time toobigtokale (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 03:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhatia - Hazarika Limit[edit]

AfDs for this article:


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

Term does not appear to actually be used. Zero results in scholar. Zero results in books. There's a cite to a paper by Bhatia and Hazarika where I assume the name comes from, but "Bhatia-Hazarika Limit" doesn't seem to be a term. ~ A412 talk! 06:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination, not notable. Only one existing article reference mentions the limit and that is a ad-supported site, one paragraph with no references. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without redirecting anywhere. This is a neologism for a concept that wouldn't deserve its own article anyway (how including rotation changes the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff calculation). The cited paper by Bhatia and Hazarika is about something else and doesn't even include it. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. The consensus here is that coverage of this article subject does establish WP:NBASIC although there is a vocal opposition to this interpretation. If editors wish to pursue a Redirect option, that can continue on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Hultman[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Currently there are only primary sources referenced, and a before check only comes up with brief mentions such as [[47]] and [[48]], which aren't nearly enough. Let'srun (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A quick search on newspapers.com turned up a decent number of articles about him. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. A more thorough search would likely turn up much more, especially given that many of the sources which mention Hultman—a star before the dawn of the internet—are likely offline. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I found those articles as well, but of those sources what would be the WP:THREE to you? Personally I don't think any of them constitute WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was unable to find any SIGCOV on the subject during a search on NewspaperArchive, Newspapers.com and ProQuest. It is of course possible that some Michican newspapers are not available there. Of the above sources, this is probably the best but not enough to base a whole article on. I would suggest a redirect to Michigan State Spartans football as most of the sources are about his stint there. Alvaldi (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will make sure to expand to show notability... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have just performed an extensive expansion of the article which shows that Hultman passes WP:NBASIC, which states, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability: the article is now over 700 words and provides an extensive summary of his life. There are additionally some sources with some depth, e.g. this and this. But we also must take into consideration the player's age and his accomplishments: he played three full seasons in the National Football League, the highest major league in the sport all-time, and was also considered a top player for the Michigan State Spartans, which is considered one of the top-level collegiate teams. Many newspapers of the time are not available online and thus it is more difficult to find coverage for athletes of this era, but regardless, we clearly have a pass of WP:NBASIC here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BeanieFan11. Also, NGRIDIRON used to presume notability for 1 game in the NFL and this guy had 30 (and most as a starter). ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BeanieFan11's improve of the article and addition of numerous sources showing general notability. Although there has been much debate about the presumption of notability for players who only played in 1 or 2 games, playing in 30 games over three seasons should have a strong presumption of notability that is only overthrown by a complete lack of sources/references. Kudos to BeanieFan11 for their work on this article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per BeanieFan11. Most of the references are short but in the context of a century old subject (where many sources are likely unavailable anymore) I am fine with that, and the Detroit Free Press article at least is of reasonable length. I would also point out that WP:THREE is just an essay, and not of ideal applicability to pre-internet subjects, especially not subjects of this vintage. Rlendog (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – state of the article now (January 2) vs. prior (January 1 and earlier) shows significant expansion via additional sources. Dmoore5556 (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Let'srun: Would you be willing to withdraw this nomination? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not here, no. The full reading of the WP:NBASIC notes that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability My concerns remain unaddressed as the coverage is all trivial, but I support a ATD. Let'srun (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    National-level coverage for being named captain of a prestigious football team is not trivial... BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not inherented. National level coverage is all of two sentences. Let'srun (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how "notability is not inherited" has any relevance here; Hultman is notable for his coverage and accomplishments per WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG. Now, even if the national coverage is short, it still shows that his accomplishments were not considered "of little value or importance" (trivial definition). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is a brief announcement in a Detroit newspaper about a Michigan university topic "national-level coverage"?? JoelleJay (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Spokesman-Review (Washington), The Morning News (Delaware), The Cincinnati Post (Ohio), The Courier-Journal (Kentucky), Los Angeles Times (California), The Salt Lake Tribune (Utah), The Baltimore Sun (Maryland), Washington Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), Journal and Courier (Indiana), The Pittsburgh Post (Pennsylvania), Chicago Tribune (Illinois) – those are some of the largest newspapers in 11 different states across the U.S. writing about Hultman's being named captain. And it's not surprising: Michigan State is one of the most prestigious college football teams and has several hundred NFL alumni (with Hultman being one of the first five), something only a few other schools can claim. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BeanieFan11 and WP:HEYMAN. Significant improvements have been made and I do believe this person passes WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hey man im josh, which sources do you consider SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per all before. Svartner (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I am still not seeing the SIGCOV required by SPORTSCRIT. A brief announcement in a Detroit newspaper about him being elected captain of the Michigan Aggies is routine news, and a local obituary submission is clearly not INDY or SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Free Press article, from the largest newspaper in one of the U.S.'s largest cities (Detroit), contains approximately 160 words and is directly about Hultman. A sometimes quoted standard, although not set in stone, is WP:100WORDS. It clearly is significant coverage, especially considering the subject here (captain at a major school, extensive top-level NFL career, 100 years old, pre-internet, not great access to sources). We need to use common sense here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:100WORDS is an essay, not a guideline. WP:SOURCESEXIST is also not a suitable keep argument. Let'srun (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense is allowed to be used, however. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another essay. Let'srun (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but it explains a policy. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so you are now saying that this article doesn't meet the GNG and BASIC and instead IAR is the reason this should be kept? Just trying to understand under what policy you think this should be kept. Let'srun (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does meet GNG and BASIC. I am saying that we need to use common sense to come to that conclusion and that IAR would also be a valid reason to keep if it did not pass GNG/BASIC. Of course, it does, so... BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WQDT-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of significant, independent coverage. This technically survived the bulk AfD of DTV stations last year but there isn't anything to show this station meets the notability guidelines on its own. Let'srun (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Bulgaria women's international footballers. Star Mississippi 01:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuliana Aleksandrova[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Bulgaria women's international footballers as the subject fails WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions (2014, 2015, 2020, 2021, 2022, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Tanjay#Education. Star Mississippi 01:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tanjay National High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Only one source that could be used for notability: the Republic Act that created it (but it's also government, so not the most independent). The rest cited in the article are either database or not SIGCOV. I'm unable to find any more sources which mention the school besides database websites or non-independent (government) blogs. Chlod (say hi!) 01:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanja Nedić[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found on this footballer were passing mentions (2017, 2020, 2022, 2023, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Cleary fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Comune#Subdivisions. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terziere[edit]

Terziere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete This doesn't seem to be notable enough to meet WP:GNG. I cannot find any sources either that demonstrate otherwise. Tooncool64 (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:DICTDEF. I can find no sources that speak to the subject specifically. The term is used frequently, but not treated as an independent subject as required by GNG. I see not path to creating a valid, encyclopaedic article here. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A similar article, Sestiere, is similar and is also at AfD now. Sestiere, Rione, Località and Quartiere are slightly different variations of municipal subdivisions. All of them can be merged and redirected to the same target. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 06:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per A. B. This seems pretty much like a dicdef to me but including all of these terms under the relevant encyclopedia topic is a good outcome. Mccapra (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Comune#Subdivisions. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sestiere[edit]

Sestiere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete This doesn't seem to be notable enough to meet WP:GNG. I cannot find any sources either that demonstrate notability. Tooncool64 (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:DICTDEF. I can find no sources that speak to the subject specifically. The term is used frequently, but not treated as an independent subject as required by GNG. I see not path to creating a valid, encyclopaedic article here. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A similar article, Terziere, is similar and is also at AfD now. Terziere, Rione, Località and Quartiere are slightly different variations of municipal subdivisions. All of them can be merged and redirected to the same target. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 06:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Ranks in the French Navy#Ranks formerly used in the Navy. I'm closing with a Redirect. If anyone desires to find a way to Merge article content to a list, it's all there in the page history. Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Officier d'épée[edit]

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

*Delete I can’t even find passing mentions. Mccapra (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC) striking !vote as others clearly have found sources so some kind of AfD seems appropriate Mccapra (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Article seems to be subpar. However, do other ranks or military jobs have wiki pages? Homerethegreat (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, they do. See, for example field marshal (Australia). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's documented in Barbiche 2015 and numerous 18th and 19th century sources such as Brillon 1782. But treating this subject standalone is probably a mistake, as Barbiche and everyone else that I can find almost always treats this as part of a larger subject of classes of Ancien Régime officers in la marine and l'armée de terre.
    • Barbiche, Bernard (2015). "Le département de la marine". Les institutions de la monarchie française à l'époque moderne (in French). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. ISBN 9782130642848.
    • Brillon, Pierre Jacques (1782). "Administration". Dictionnaire De Jurisprudence Et Des Arrêts (in French). Vol. 2. Lyon: Aimé de la Roche.
  • Uncle G (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Ranks in the French Navy § Ranks formerly used in the Navy. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 06:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Ranks in the French Navy § Ranks formerly used in the Navy. Under Wikipedia:Summary style: If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate article, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure a Merge to this section of the article is feasible given that it is just a list. I don't know how additional content could be incorporated into one list item. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still have creeks in Kentucky. I'll try to work something out for that section. There's more to be said than just a list, I think, from the aforementioned sources. Uncle G (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_January_2

Leave a Reply