The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Little emperor syndrome. Daniel (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Child's slave[edit]

Child's slave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article seems to be about a flash-in-the-pan Chinese-language phraseology used mostly in 2013–14, related to a popular piece of media released around that time, and is not really a notable concept in itself then nor now. This is an issue I see to one degree or another with a lot of China-related articles, where a unique phrase is used to birth a new sociological concept not necessarily related to the wider world—of course, with the root of the issue being there aren't a lot of reliable sources that actually link such concepts in China to those elsewhere. So it's equally a 'greater world' issue as much as it is a wiki issue.

Regardless, there aren't really any results or sources that would lend this concept reification or notability since that time that I could find in either English or Chinese, the ones that are there are exceedingly paltry and do not constitute notability in itself imo. This isn't proof in itself, but the corresponding zhwiki article is three uncited sentences. Remsense留 23:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Remsense留 23:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You raise some interesting points, but on the other hand the phrase 孩奴 and similar terms like 房奴 (housing slave) continue to be discussed as a matter of linguistics. For example this[1] uses it as an example of internet slang. I know that's a thesis, but it's not paywalled so it's handy. In this article[2] mentions are quite brief, but current, and it says most people recognize the term. Does this article have merit as a linguistic phenomenon even if it's not the hottest slang ATM? Oblivy (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oblivy, the use–mention distinction plays a role once again—is the term in itself notable, or does any article for it have to awkwardly describe both the term and the phenomenon, since the former may not be notable, as much slang isn't, and the latter may not justify its own article as a manifestation of a greater sociological phenomenon?
I hadn't found that article, thank you for linking it—I would really appreciate additional input from people that may have a local feel for whether these "things" are really "things" distinct from western analogues. This is definitely the realm of my personal opinion, but there are a lot of articles for "Chinese terms" that could use this kind of scrutiny, and reading them often feels icky, like they're reports from Victorian expeditions to far-off lands. Remsense留 01:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant excerpt from WP:NOTDICT says:

In other cases, a word or phrase is often used as a "lens" or concept through which another topic or closely related set of topics are grouped, seen or renamed. In such cases, coverage about a word, phrase or concept should treat it as such. The main coverage of the topics that were modified, grouped or renamed by the "lens" is typically elsewhere in Wikipedia. World music, Political correctness, Gay agenda and Truthiness illustrate this.

Remsense留 02:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Another nomination with a lack of a valid rationale. So what if the topic is a "flash-in-the-pan"? Wikipedia:Notability is not temporary, and the concept does not have to have sources about it in every single part of the world for it to be notable. I also found this entire piece from Beijing Review on the concept and this, both published in 2010, indicating there was significant coverage out of the 2013-14 period. Admittedly, most of the sources that appeared in my search was about American slavery and not this concept, so there is not a whole lot about the topic. But there seems to be enough to make a small article out of it, and not being internationally known or currently covered is no excuse to not have an article on it. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am aware notability is not temporary, my point being that the 'flash' as it were did not generate enough coverage of the concept itself to constitute notability, and moreover that some false notion of notability may be generated simply by the term being in Chinese, and perhaps the material should be incorporated into a general article for the concept. Remsense留 21:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe the nom is referring to WP:SUSTAINED, which is a valid argument in a general sense. (I don't know enough about the subject to know if it's rightfully applied though.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Meanwhile, I am voting Merge per BlackcurrantTea's reasoning. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 15:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I am firmly for deletion if the current cites the only WP:RS available. Without scholarly secondary analysis of the phrase, this should be deleted. As written, the article fails WP:GNG for WP:SUSTAINED and WP:DEPTH as well as WP:SIGCOV with a possible detour into WP:NOTNEO. I strongly disagree with HumanxAnthro's characterisation of WP:NTEMP in this instance. The question is whether this flash-in-the-pan ever had enough of a 'flash' to establish notability in the first place. Further, the lack of a valid rationale argument is simply false. Remsense discussed notability and sourcing, both of which are perfectly strong policy-based arguments. I also have a quibble with using general recognisability as a indicator of notability as Oblivy does above; flash-in-the-pan is familiar to nearly all English speakers, yet does not have a page in this encyclopaedia. However, I cannot !vote to delete at this time because I am unable to do proper WP:BEFORE research. All sources are in languages that I do not read and the cites in the article are all from a very, very narrow timeframe. If no one can provide solid RS with strong analysis and a wider range of dates, I will change to deletion before this AfD closes. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Wuuuuuuuuutttt? I just brought up two articles from mainstream sources on the topic from 2010. Also, I have absolutely no idea what "strength" you saw. Remsense's only-cited policy page was NOTDICT, which does not even apply because the article IS about the concept and not just the phrase. His only notability complaints, to put it simply, were that there were not sources about this concept in other parts of the world. I would love to know what guideline prohibits a topic if it only exists or is covered within a specific nation state, because a lot of articles about animes are pretty much in trouble if that exists. Also, while WP:ACADEMIC coverage of the topic would help tremendously, it is not the end of the world if that does not exist. All that needs to happen for WP:GNG to be satisfied is a few independent sources (newspapers or magazines) to WP:SIGCOV the topic, and with the Beijing Review article and citations currently in the article, it seems to have satisfied that. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 01:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep although not enthusiastically so. The deletion rationales are pretty all over the place right now. Sustained isn't an issue. Notneo seems to give way to sustained. Sigcov is addressed with Chinese sources.
  @HumanxAnthro Good catch on the Beijing Review and China Daily Articles. That means we have coverage in 2010, later in 2013-14 in analysis of internet usage, and then in 2019 or so in the PKU article. That's pretty sustained.
  There were two academic studies in Chinese in the 2010-2011 range:

• 岳玉阁. “论‘孩奴’现象对幼儿生命成长的不良影响.” 教育与教学研究 25.10 (2011): 120–122
• 徐安琪. “‘孩奴’炒作现象的负效应和辨正.” Dang dai qing nian yan jiu = Contemporary youth research 8 (2010)

And this 2023 article[3] gives it a passing footnote mention (bringing in the Beijing Review article) in the context of pressures on Chinese fertility.
I "quibble" with whether I actually advocated for using recognisability as an indicator of notability, BUT I do wonder whether the almost total lack of discussion of this concept in English sources means that it's really a Chinese-only phenomenon.
That all having been said, the China Daily article is 100% about this term, and there are multiple Chinese-language papers which use it as either a centerpiece or a significant example of online speech. I think that's enough.
Although not required by WP:NEXISTS it would be nice if some of this work could make it into the article... Oblivy (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am increasingly ready to prefer merging or withdrawing entirely with the additional sources found during the discussion. I apologize if my initial arguments were presented confusingly, but my reasons for skepticism in articles like these are inherently multi-faceted, due to a number of contributing factors.Remsense留 02:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Little emperor syndrome due to the similarity in concepts: The one-child policy, the child's being the centre of the family and attention, high parental expectations, and spoilt children. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • BlackcurrantTea, precisely! Thank you for naming the article specifically, something I've neglected to do. Remsense留 19:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Little emperor syndrome per BlackcurrantTea's reasoning. It resolves my concerns in teh the comment I made above. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oumou Tangara[edit]

Oumou Tangara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject, a Malian women's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions in squad lists and match reports (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This could be better off as part of a List of Mali women's international footballers. Geschichte (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 17:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NBLP and WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of sources. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Gracies and the Birth of Vale Tudo[edit]

The Gracies and the Birth of Vale Tudo (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 to meet WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. I've tried looking for reliable sources, it's all just IMDb-style pages with a short synopsis and cast list. The article as it is now is just a clone of the IMDb page. There's been no media or critic engagement and no notable viewer engagement. The history of the article has just been obvious WP:PROMOTION, WP:COI, and some WP:CV. Spagooder (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Martial arts. Shellwood (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Doesn't seem to be any reliable sources out there that give more than a passing glance. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks references with only 2, and didn't find anything with good faith google search. Doest seem to pass WP:GNG.Lethweimaster (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not sure the article's only reference is a reliable source. I do know my own search did not find sources to convince me that either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM is met. The article also appears to have SPA and COI issues. Papaursa (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gracie_family#Documentary_coverage; I have incorporated a limited amount of text there using the Trip magazine source. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I just double-checked the Trip article and it's a puff piece on the family, only production/release info is the director's name. Spagooder (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mondera Chakroborty[edit]

Mondera Chakroborty (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 film actress (yet). There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are Independent of the subject. Most of sources are either passing mentions or primary (e.g. interview). Acted in two films but not yet released. Fails every criteria of WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Dance, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of passing WP:NACTOR. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I noticed that many edits by the article creator Mateuka have been reverted. It might be wise to review other WWI articles on battles they have created if this is indeed a hoax article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Dadiani II[edit]

William Dadiani II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A hoax for which there are no sources at all. The creator has linked it to various existing battle articles already in the encyclopedia. Mccapra (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Germany. Mccapra (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: 100% a hoax. I have read numerous books on the WW1 East Africa Campaign, and all of them agree that Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck and Kurt Wahle were the only high-ranking German officers in East Africa. Lettow-Vorbeck would have killed for another general; he had to put lieutenants in command of entire frontlines due to his extreme lack of officers. Applodion (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Hoax, and neither a good nor an entertaining one. Get it outta here. Ted52 (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Horizons (strategy)[edit]

New Horizons (strategy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Completely non-notable campaign. Governments come up with many such schemes/"strategies"/campaigns all the time, does not make them automatically notable. Other than the publication of the strategy in 2009 here, I cannot find much external coverage. Search results include this unrelated charity.

Overall poor-quality article on non-notable topic. Elshad (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Psychiatry, and England. Elshad (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- No indication in the article or WP:BEFORE searches of WP:GNG. No WP:PERSISTENCE or WP:DEPTH and sources are WP:PRIMARY. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. At 15+ years on Wikipedia, it looks like this article could be in the Top 10 of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia if anyone wants to take the trouble to make an entry there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Powell[edit]

Sarah Powell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can't find any information that suggests that this person existed. Google searches of her full name, the title of her best known work, and the title of the single reference for the page all return mirrors of the article and nothing else. Onorem (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Poetry, and France. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 22:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sorry that we are so late to the party, Andy Dingley. ☺ It looks like you were quite right all those years ago. I've checked Worldcat, Google Books, and the OUP search, and I cannot find any indication that the book cited by the article's author exists. This appears to be a hoax. Uncle G (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My tea leaves and goat liver are infallible. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree that this appears to be a hoax.

Jahaza (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appears to be a hoax.PamD 14:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appears to be a hoax. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, appears to be one for the 10+ year list. Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yuantang (language game)[edit]

Yuantang (language game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject fails GNG. The prior AfD was withdrawn as clearly no sources were added and I don't care what zh-wiki says. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Games, and China. Shellwood (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – here are three scholarly sources:
  • 兴宁“鸳塘话”研究——兼论兴宁苑塘罗氏家族的兴衰史 by 陈靖云
  • Exploring Xingning's Yuantang subdialect, a secret variety of the Hakka dialect / 從興寧“鴛塘話”探析客家話的秘密語 by Sheng-yu Teng / 鄧盛有
  • 射字游戏及其应用 by 刘本才 and 李春

Over at zh:苑塘话 there's another source listed, but I haven't found a link to it:

• 罗建平. 举世无双的神秘罗氏族语:苑塘话. 客家风情, 2003.

This should be enough to demonstrate notability. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if I'm allowed to vote – I had withdrawn the original nomination after being convinced by the viability of the sources provided, but since then I haven't gotten around to improving the article, and didn't want to add the sources to it if they weren't being used yet. Remsense留 06:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "I don't care what zh-wiki says" is such a flippant attitude to take when it cites scholarly sources and is an affront to WP:BEFORE _dk (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• keep: The first source given by Mx. Granger is from a journal started by a Chinese national museum which IMO is reliable. Based on the abstract, it should be considered as a secondary source as it provides an analysis/synthesis based on local chronicles and ethnographic materials. I don't have access to the full text, but based on the title and abstract, they should clearly have significant coverage. --94rain ^Talk 06:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

River Road Estates, California[edit]

River Road Estates, 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 housing development/subdivision fails GEOLAND Reywas92^Talk 21:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. Reywas92^Talk 21:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why everyone over at RfD wanted to restore this non-article is a mystery to me. Completely non-notable subdivision; nothing to be said about it; article is a waste of space. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Subject does not meet the GNG. Let'srun (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree, just a subdivision. I checked newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, and California Digital Newspaper Collection and didn't find any unique coverage.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subdivision with no coverage to suggest it passes WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

San Joaquin River Estates, California[edit]

San Joaquin River Estates, 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 housing development/subdivision fails GEOLAND Reywas92^Talk 21:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. Reywas92^Talk 21:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete See my comments about River Road Estates, above. Another GNIS copy-paste job. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing is here to indicate notability. Concur with the nom regarding GEOLAND. Let'srun (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Madera Country Club Estates, California[edit]

Madera Country Club Estates, 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 housing development/subdivision within Madera Acres, California fails GEOLAND Reywas92^Talk 20:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. Reywas92^Talk 20:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I went and added some sources about this place from a few newspapers. The area is notable for being part of a real estate boom in the 1960's and 1970's. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yeah Reywas92 is right this isn't notable. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Besides MOS:DECADE, I maintain that routine local coverage of housing development doesn't mean the individual development is notable, especially when it's within an existing community with an article; better to have a history section in Madera Acres, California than to suggest a subdivision like the one I grew up in needs its own article. Reywas92^Talk 23:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete See my comments on River Road Estates, above. Lots of places had real-estate booms in the 1960s and 1970s; if that's our standard for notability then pretty much every housing development built in those years is notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Bamako[edit]

Embassy of the United States, Bamako (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 articles say nothing about embassies, instead reduplicating extant articles about bilateral relations. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

Embassy of the United States, Bogotá (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Embassy of the United States, Santo Domingo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Embassy of the United States, Santiago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Embassy of the United States, Muscat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, Oman, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all created in a spree with no consideration for notability, and all are unnecessary content forks. LibStar (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect all to their respective X-United States relation pages. Sgubaldo (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to High-speed rail in the United States. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

North Atlantic Rail[edit]

North Atlantic Rail (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)

While there was a brief flurry of press coverage at the initial announcement (mostly just regurgitating the press release), there is no indication of any enduring notability. There's been no coverage since 2021 - even their own website stops at July 2021. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's still being discussed; in Gnews, [4] an opinion piece, but the first few I pull up are from Conneticut and all over New England. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oaktree b: That piece is from June 2021, during the initial spurt of interest. The only Newspapers.com result in the past two calendar years is a single letter to the editor (not a reliable source). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This [5] although the project has morphed into something else. Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oaktree b: That's the update to NEC FUTURE, which is an Amtrak project. Same region as North Atlantic Rail, and some of the same corridors, but completely separate organization with no relation. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's rather odd to see this under "Planned" in Template:High-speed rail in the United States when it's just a concept in its infancy. I don't think this has gotten enough sustained attention by the actual planners to have an article. Reywas92^Talk 05:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to High-speed rail in the United States. Although this has been described at length in Newsday and mentioned in Bloomberg, that's about the only significant coverage that this project has received in reliable non-primary sources. There are also less significant mentions in sources like Boston.com, as well as the above mentioned opinion pieces, but at this point I think there is a case for merging the article for now. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to High-speed rail in the United States would indeed be the wisest choice because, while it is still in the planning stages, it nevertheless stands a chance of coming to fruition. And if it does not, it can still be mentioned as one of the high-speed rail proposals that were put forth. TH1980 (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (selectively) to High-speed rail in the United States. North Atlantic Rail is short and still needs serious trimming. It makes the SPINOFF unjustified. gidonb (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to High-speed rail in the United States per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Doomsday Clock characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rorschach (Reggie Long)[edit]

Rorschach (Reggie Long) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This version of the character is not independently notable. Some trade sourcing came out while the publication was ongoing (Polygon, CBR, IGN, a post-2013 WP:NEWSWEEK article), but no coverage in the five years since. Other citations are primary, like directly from the source material. If the article is not deleted, it should be merged and redirected into Rorschach (character). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If not kept, then merge into List of Doomsday Clock characters not the Rorschach (character) article, that article does not need this stuff, it's about a specific character.★Trekker (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notability isn't temporary. If it was notable in 2013, it's always notable. The Polygon sources and IGn Latin America are fine, the rest are good. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see this as having ever having been notable. And the graphic novel came out in 2017, not 2013. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polygon is just an extended plot summary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not voting yet but I felt it good to note that this article has been proposed for merging with Rorschach (character) since May of this year. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge since the article does not estabilish notability for this version of the character. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Doomsday Clock characters - I have to agree with the nomination that the sources on this character were largely the result of comic/pop media sites reporting on/reviewing The Doomsday Clock as it was being released. There really is not much that I can find that was written after this period that goes into any analysis of the character specifically. In fact, the only articles I'm finding that mention this version of the character since The Doomsday Clock finished are largely just statements about how this version of the character was not used for later Watchmen media, such as the TV series or later comics. This leads me to agree that the only notability this version of the character had was simply the notability of The Doomsday Clock itself, and he does not pass the WP:GNG on his own merits. I also agree with StarTrekker that, as the characters only significant appearance was in The Doomsday Clock, the character list for that series is more appropriate of a target for a merger, rather than the Rorschach (character) article. Rorshacma (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to character list, per Rorshacma. I wouldn't object to a mention at the related Rorschach (character). This doesn't have WP:SIGCOV for a separate article, but can be covered within another article (or two). Shooterwalker (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of Doomsday Clock characters and mention him in Rorschach (character). Not independently notable but I see no reason not to mention him there.

  Industrial Insect (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Just as an FYI for the above two comments, the character is already mentioned at Rorschach (character) in the "Events of Doomsday Clock" section, so that looks to be taken care of already. Rorshacma (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge into either List of Doomsday Clock characters or Rorschach in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. If I recall correctly, @Muboshgu: previously started a discussion about this merge on Rorschach's page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gugak FM[edit]

Gugak 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)

Has been tagged uncited for over a decade. Previous deletion discussion said that ‘government-licensed broadcast radio stations have been held generally notable’ but that does not show this one is notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and South Korea. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: mentioned in [6] and in [7], but no significant coverage to establish notability. Owen× ☎ 21:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Changed to keep per sources found by Freedom4U. Owen× ☎ 03:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm really wary of deleting a national FM radio network like this. The kowiki article is little help, though it does cite a couple of articles on new transmitters for this service. There appear to be two articles in the Korea Herald from its launch in 2001, but I cannot access them. I also see it sometimes transliterated as "Kugak FM", and it gets mentioned in some of the academic literature—apparently this was an idea on the table going back to 1998. Someone with Korean language fluency and access to sources in the 1990s and 2000s could save this page. I don't have a !vote right now, but I'm skeptical of deletion. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sammi Brie Your hunch was right—Google and Korean-language topics are often a terrible combo when looking for sources. I've left three SIGCOV sources in my vote below. I'd be interested in the Korea Herald article too, would it be possible to provide a link ot it? ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 01:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm also on the fence.

Looking on Google Books, there's a number of mentions of Gugak FM in English. This book [8] seems to have a reasonable discussion of it, although I can't access it beyond the preview.

I think maybe the article could be rescoped to cover the parent Gugak Broadcasting Foundation [ko], which possibly has more notable coverage as it covers a wider number of stations, but I don't know who's willing to do that work (I'm not).

I'm not sure how much popularity the radio station or its parent have, although they are mildly important for Korean culture. I also doubt anyone is likely to come around in the near future and flesh out the article if we do keep it. Complicated; if it's deleted I'll be very slightly disappointed but I don't think it'll make much of an impact. toobigtokale (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Btw I lean delete if nobody is willing to step up in near future to fix up and save it. So many more substantial Korea-related articles are in need of fixing, think it's unlikely anyone will ever fix this organically at this rate toobigtokale (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Significant coverage here of them expanding to Busan, here going in-depth into their opening logistics, and here on their celebration of their thirteenth year open. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 01:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok nvm, keep; these are better results than the quick ones I looked at. toobigtokale (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Also !voting keep. This is the kind of sourcing I was expecting to see as soon as a Korean speaker turned up. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Discussion about a possible rename can occur on the article talk page or you can just BEBOLD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renault Grand Prix[edit]

Renault Grand Prix (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)

Blatant hoax. Speedy deletion was rejected for some reason, no idea why, as it's obviously a hoax. 91.82.169.36 (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete This is clearly a hoax and also, even if it somehow wasnt, i couldnt find any sources. Begocci (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: a plethora of schematics and models for sale suggest that this may not necessarily be a hoax at all ([9], [10], [11], [12]). That is not to say this is a notable or encyclopedic car model, just that it seems to have existed, and the article can't be speedied based on CSD:G3. Owen× ☎ 19:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to want to describe Renault's car in the 1906 French Grand Prix as OwenX indicates above, but that car doesn't pass WP:GNG. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I stand corrected, per HBP below; clearly didn't do enough BEFORE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Unclear how or why this is a WP:HOAX. The article should be moved to "Renault AK 90CV" or something to that effect, but the subject is fairly clearly notable, and a basic WP:BEFORE search for the actual name of the vehicle quickly returns plenty of evidence that this meets the WP:GNG (the Independentand the Telegraph, for example). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per sources found by HumanBodyPiloter5. Owen× ☎ 22:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no notability guideline for topics related to the automotive industry. WP:NVEHICLE is exclusively for locomotives and ships, WP:NCAR redirects to North Carolina's Wikiproject, and WP:NCARS does not exist. - 91.82.169.36 (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Inuit religion#Deities. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignirtoq[edit]

Ignirtoq (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 - the only mentions online are directly ripped from this article. There is one singular mention on one line with no source in a single not particularly notable book from 1907; aside from that I can find absolutely nothing else. CoconutOctopus talk 18:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Religion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• We can probably merge to Inuit religion § Deities based on the 1907 source[13] and the fact that it is listed in a Gale reference from 1992[14], and this Oxford University Press reference from 1995[15].

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Inuit religion § Deities per Siroxo's refs and recommendation above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Note OwenX's change of !vote due to new sourcing, this creates a consensus. Daniel (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First International Bank[edit]

First International Bank (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 non notable organization, non encyclopedic content. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- Not to be confused with First International Bank of Israel, I found citation of it being "Largest bank in North Dakota", so it may be worth keeping it for that reason, although the sourcing could certainly use some improvement. Whosethose (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: would we keep an article based only on the subject's merit as being the largest bank in, say, McAllen, Texas? North Dakota has the same size population as McAllen. Other than an occasional small deal or lawsuit, I couldn't find any news coverage about this bank. Owen× ☎ 21:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Changed to Keep per Sammi Brie's thorough work on sourcing. Thank you! Owen× ☎ 19:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I've given it a go to see if I can't improve this article. Seems to be just enough coverage. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sammi Brie began adding sources. While we are at it we probably need to remove the Forbes (contributor) WP:FORBESCON article from references - it was in there before the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ , with no consensus to redirect at this time. This potential redirect can be explored via talk page discussion, potentially after some significant improvements are considered for the article as per comments in this debate. Daniel (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in St. Louis[edit]

Crime in St. Louis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is redundant with the crime section on the main St. Louis page. I think anything that could be included here should just be put on that page. Additionally, this article appears to be not nearly as kept up with as the main page (leading someone visiting this article to be misled with old information). This article is generally of low quality and not even really written in the right tone. Damiens the Regicide (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Police, Politics, Social science, and Missouri. Damiens the Regicide (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article appears to show notability with St. Louis commonly ranked as one of the most dangerous cities. AfD is not cleanup. Conyo14 (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect A confusing article that mish-mashes data for both St. Louis City and St. Louis County, Missouri unreasonably into one article, and poorly with out-of-date data and jargon (if I'm not going to look up the meaning of "index crime" the average reader isn't going to do it either, not to mention the article it's linked to is barely sourced). This should solely cover St. Louis City, and a redirect to St. Louis#Crime is highly suggested here as that seems to be much more up-to-date and focused, along with being less prone to edit warring, than this article. Nate • (chatter) 21:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Tag for improvements. There was no discussion on the article talk page for six years before this nomination for deletion, so Alternatives to Deletion such as improvement have not been considered yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to St. Louis#Crime. Don't have to create a new page for crime in every region unless it is a significant issue. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:44, 5 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!} 23:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Tag, aggreeing with Robert McClenon, As pointed out by Conyo14 crime, and its coverage, is significant in St. Louis. Frigyes06 (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. There is certainly no prohibition against having an article on crime in a specific city (e.g. Crime in New York City, Crime in Hong Kong), and there is no reason we couldn't have Crime in Davenport if there were sufficient sources to support encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 01:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Powell (sportscaster)[edit]

Jim Powell (sportscaster) (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 don't think Georgia Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame is enough for N:BIO and am unable to find anything else of depth to establish notability for this broadcaster. With long tenures with the Brewers and Braves, I don't think there's an obvious redirect. Star Mississippi 23:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Baseball, Georgia (U.S. state), and Wisconsin. Star Mississippi 23:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. mlb.com has a decent bio of him[16] and Bleacher Report gave him a paragraph as Bob Uecker's departing longtime broadcasting partner.[17] He might also have been a Frick Award nominee, if this source can be believed. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Current article quality is lacking, but I found sources for notability.[18][19][20][21][22] I presume more can be found. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To analyse sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I've reviewed the sources presented above and they seem sufficient in affirming the subject's notability. Furthermore, searches for "Jim Powell Brewers" and "Jim Powell Braves" on Google Books yield results. Most notably, chapter 30 of this book is titled "Jim Powell and Chip Caray at Truist Park"; the chapter is about 10 pages long featuring extensive interviews and coverage of Powell. Left guide (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Little Grill Collective[edit]

Little Grill Collective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP WP:ADVERT WP:TNT promotional, advertorial article based on hyper-local sources on a 48 seat hole in the wall run of the mill restaurant. Graywalls (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Virginia. Graywalls (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• There's plenty of media coverage far beyond that for a run-of-the-mill local restaurant. Just in 2023, there's [23] [24] [25], all with significant coverage from different local sources. This coverage stretches back significantly in time as well. There is also non-local coverage, such as [26]. The article could certainly use some improvement but I don't see a case for deletion here. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thrillist article is far from meeting the threshold of WP:ORGDEPTH. It is not a significant, independent, secondary source, but rather just one reflective opinion paragraph, so this would not be the source that can be used to meet the WP:AUD satisfying WP:NCORP source. Some of the other articles are just routine articles about the local happenings in the local press about local interest. NCORP not established. Graywalls (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A source does not need to meet ORGDEPTH to contribute to notability (and the coverage in that source is not just "trivial or incidental"). These are just the sources I found in spending a few minutes to search; I am sure there are more that would be harder to dig up. Your assertions that this is just a "run of the mill" restaurant have been demonstrated to be false. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCOV, ORGDEPTH, ORGIND expects at least (at the absolute minimum) one source meeting regional, national or intertional coverage that is independent of the article subject company/group, in-depth, and secondary and multiple coverage by the same publisher or same journalist counts as one. What's really expected is a nice big slab of solid wood of the highest standards. In its absence, bringing in sawdust by the truck load is not a substitute. In general, the proliferation of local restaurant and bar articles has been an ongoing issue on Wikipedia and this article is no exception. Graywalls (talk) 08:48, 5 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!} 23:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It's true every source doesn't have to be significant coverage; however a paragraph in a relatively routine coverage in which it lists places to check out do not amount to something that is sufficient to support WP:ORGDEPTH. We have a 1/3 of a steak and a bucket of ground meat. A full steak that's expected is not found. Graywalls (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I've already seen your arguments both in your nom statement and in response above. They don't get any more convincing through repetition. It's bad form to reply to every !voter unless you have something genuinely new to say.Central and Adams (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Government performance management[edit]

Government performance management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a non-notable concept. It appears to be a term used by consultants and in low-quality sources. If there is any content worth keeping, it can be merged with articles on "good governance" or "public administration". Thenightaway (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gautam Kapur[edit]

Gautam Kapur (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 yet notable per WP:BIO, WP:NMODEL, or WP:ACTOR. In a WP:BEFORE search I couldn't find any significant, independent, secondary coverage of him, just interviews in obscure news blogs like "Hindustan Metro", passing mentions in film notices, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid placement. His acting has all been minor roles so far. According to this reference, the short film he produced was an official selection at the Golden Door Film Festival, but the actual awards he's won so far are all from minor festivals of unknown notability. Zero secondary coverage of his vitamin business. Other editors interested in searching for coverage that I missed should note that there's an unrelated basketball player with the same name, and that this person's surname is sometimes transliterated as "Kapoor". Wikishovel (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and India. Wikishovel (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Fashion, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Considering this was only created recently, do not believe a soft-deletion here will 'stick', so relisting to establish a consensus either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For Linked-In. Not Wikipedia. MisterWizzy (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this non-notable model who has appeared in a few minor acting roles. The article was created by an account whose sole purpose was to promote barely-known actor/models, suggesting COI. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:NMODEL,WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Črnuče Bridge[edit]

Črnuče Bridge (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)

Has not been much improved since it was last kept because it was only 4 days old. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't think this article should be deleted. It may be in a poor state at the moment, but otherwise the Črnuče Bridge (or its predecessor) has a long history starting in Roman times and was also prominent in World War II.[27][28] --TadejM ^{my talk} 17:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source here saying it reopened in 2014 after restoration..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have added that information to the article. --TadejM ^{my talk} 17:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is informative about a site/structure that has had local/regional significance for millennia, and it is well sourced. Doremo (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to be a notable bridge, good job TadejM! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Article has been significantly improved since the AFD nomination. An image of the bridge could also be added if any exist. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep As everyone has said "keep" I understand that as the nominator I can now change my vote as further discussion would be a waste of time. Thank you to everyone who improved the article, which is now interesting. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just remember that "article hasn't been expanded", and "is too short" isn't justification to nominate an article, only if you can't find any sources online.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My nomination did not mention the shortness of the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Even abstinence of online sources doesn't mean the subject automatically fails WP:GNG. A09|(talk) 21:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Chastity of structures is not a criteria for notability, last I checked. ;-) llywrch (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per TadejM and Dr. Blofeld.--A09|(talk) 21:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TadejM: On the revert. The lead is supposed to summarise the article though. Your version has information not in the body! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dr. Blofeld. As stated, feel free to edit the article as you see fit, but the bolded names should be written in the lead and please take care to preserve the article factually correct. Only the railway bridge was destroyed in World War II, but the road bridge was not as it was used as a checkpoint. --TadejM ^{my talk} 17:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Former AfD was nominated; please move discussion to the actual nom. Non-admin closure. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 17:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Črnuče Bridge[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Črnuče Bridge (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Črnuče Bridge|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)

In 2008 it was kept as the article was only 4 days old and it was hoped it would be improved. But still now nothing shows it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't think this article should be deleted. It may be in a poor state at the moment, but otherwise the Črnuče Bridge (or its predecessor) has a long history starting in Roman times and was also prominent in World War II.[29][30] --TadejM ^{my talk} 17:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ukiah area[edit]

Ukiah area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article was created in 2021 as a catch-all target for redirects. What happened was this: several information-less stubs on nonexistent "unincorporated communities" such as Largo, California and El Roble, California were proposed for deletion, and it was suggested they all be redirected here rather than deleted outright, since documentation exists that these were actual stops on the Northwestern Pacific Railroad. But in most cases that's all they were, non-notable sidings or flag stops, not "communities", and as a result this article on the "Ukiah area" is essentially just a list of non-notable railroad points; i.e. a WP:COATRACK (and an off-topic one at that). We already have a good article on Ukiah, California and Ukiah Valley; I don't see this as a sufficiently distinct topic to merit an article (the hand-drawn map does not impress me). The original stubs should have just been deleted, and so should this article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging unblocked participants from the related 2021 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Largo, California: @Mangoe, JPxG, Uncle G, Pontificalibus, David Eppstein, Aymatth2, Hog Farm, MrsSnoozyTurtle, and Eggishorn czar 04:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sourcing does not convince me that this is a topic independently notable from Ukiah, California, Ukiah Valley, and Mendocino County, and even if we had such an article, the content as a catch-all for would-have-been-deleted railway stubs is not an important and encyclopedic aspect of this topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Digital world[edit]

Digital world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article seems more appropriate as a dictionary entry per WP:NOTDICT. There doesn't appear to be much coverage of the term in a way that would support an encyclopedia article, such as for its history of usage.

The second paragraph of WP:NEO applies to this article: while there's plenty of evidence of use of the term, there's little coverage about the term itself. As an example, the reference for a statement in the article about the term predating the World Wide Web is misattributed, firstly, and links to an unrelated paper from 1958 that uses the term once. Said statement is WP:OR. Uhai (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Uhai (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Lewcm Talk to me! 20:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Jilka[edit]

Alan Jilka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and politician-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United States of America, and Kansas. UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Mayor of Salinas wouldn't be notable without a ton of RS, which there isn't, beyond routine reporting of stuff going on in town where the mayor was involved. Congressional candidate isn't notable. Delete for not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Salina KS is nowhere close to large enough that its mayors would get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing as mayors — the notability test for a mayor isn't passed just by minimally verifying that he exists, and requires writing and sourcing substantial content about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But there's nothing like that here, and not nearly enough sourcing to claim that he would pass WP:GNG instead of having to meet the requirements of WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Hinrich Hussmann[edit]

Albert Hinrich Hussmann (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 artist-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Germany. UtherSRG (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; and expand with the German WP article for example, as a start. His notability and legacy are discussed by reliable sources quoted there. Does meet WP:NARTIST as sources show: noted as a Symbolist animalier sculptor, see: this,or this to verify that assertion with some English sources available online....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mushy Yank's research. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added some new citations to the article, specifically Benezit Dictionary of Artists and RKD Research. This artist's career spanned two world wars. I took a look at the German WP article. It is not well cited. The citations to the web are all 404 or dead. I do not have access to the print articles and books cited. I can't bring anything over from the German version. The most interesting fact from that article (uncited) is that Hussmann exhibited at the Große Deutsche Kunstausstellung and was a member of the Reichskammer der Bildenden Künste (Reich Chamber of Visual Art). After looking into this for awhile, I still cannot figure out if the artist was an important animalier sculptor. I also don't understand the importance to history of the artist joining Reichskammer der Bildenden Künste. Does this affect his place in history (has he been cancelled)? Are his porcelain figures collectible or is it just auctioneer hype? I hope someone with more understanding of the subject chimes in. I lean towards Keep with the new citations and the coverage in Wiki Commons.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The source Mushy Yank pointed to, "The Animaliers: A Collector's Guide to the Animal Sculptors of the 19th & 20th Centuries" by James A Mackay from Jan 1, 1973 just says "Little is known of Albert Hinrich-Hussmann, beyond the bare facts of his birth in 1874 and that he exhibited three works in Berlin in 1909, but he sculpted a Young Stag which turned up at the sale-rooms in 1970." That type of brief mention isn't the best thing to base an encyclopedia article on, but an artist being written about in a book published in another country 60 years after an exhibition and 30 years after their death is far better coverage than most of the "contemporary artists" with Wikipedia articles who are covered only by their own website and maybe some random local news. Best of luck to those working on expanding the article and I'll also see if I can find anything else to expand the article with. Elspea756 (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers. Star Mississippi 14:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Freddy's Cat[edit]

Fat Freddy's Cat (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 how this meets WP:GNG. No reception/analysis, weak 'in popular culture' section that has only a few minor examples, poorly rererenced and significantly overlapping with reception related to its parent work (The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers) where this should probably be redirected per WP:ATD-R. My BEFORE shows nothing else that meets SIGCOV and RS requirements. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per nom. No evidence of independent notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial merge to The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers. Some of the bibliography is not present in the target article, and a couple of the sources could be used for verifiability (and to avoid appearance of OR) in the target. —siroχo 19:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge to The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers#Characters - the sources and info would help that article. If not, the article should still be redirected to that so that it can be remade in the future if someone finds more in universe info and sources. However, I think that if someone finds more sources I think it would be worth keeping due to the character having its own storylines separate to the other characters. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - gets a two-page article (plus some reprinted strips) in Malcolm Whyte's Great comic cats (2001) which I'd say is one suitable source. Commentary from Nicholas Lezard in a review in The Guardian here. Also gets a few mentions in in Dez Skinn's Comix : The underground revolution (2004), and dozens of other smaller mentions in book and magazine sources on archive.org, some which have a bit of commentary. Gets the most cursory of passing mentions in a Philip K. Dick story. There was a 2018 event at the British Library called "Cartoon Cats: Gilbert Shelton and Posy Simmonds" (which I attended) but I can't find much trace of that. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. after article improvements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Celina, Minnesota[edit]

Celina, Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A crossroads with a house and outbuildings at the corner. Maybe it was once a store, maybe not. Searching turned up a passing reference to a "Ladies Aid of Bear River, Silverdale, and Celina Minnesota" in a discussion on the making of lefse, which I would submit is a very weak peg to hang belief in an actual town on. Other than that I got juxtapositions and gazetteers. Mangoe (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately, the St Louis County plat search yields nothing for this, and it is broken anyway. But this is in the Northwest St. Louis, Minnesota unorganized territory, and — by definition — there are no towns in an unorganized territory. "Town" is not what you think in Minnesota. There might be cities, though. Welcome to the mid-West! The Minnesota Natural Resource Atlas has no charter cities at all in this unorganized territory, so this would be a statutory city, if it actually were a city. The 2001 revised Upham book says "village", which is problematic (as they don't appear to have caught up with 1974), with 2 post offices. Uncle G (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even though this place no longer exists, it did in that past, and that makes it notable. --rogerd (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can see why the article was nominated; most of the sources on Celina, Minnesota, are in Norwegian. Dozens of them, actually. But there are indeed sources. Celina was a Norwegian-American village in the early 20th century with a church, post office, stores, cemetery, and a fire lookout tower. It was still regarded as a community as late as 1974, when the Minneapolis Star ran a story about the damage on the bridge between Celina and Greaney. I'm also seeing many English-language news articles about Celina, but most of them are humdrum announcements of farm auctions, cattle sales, people visiting each other, and weekly articles about services at the Celina Ltheran Evangelical Church. Still, there is significant coverage of Celina in Norwegian-language publications in both Minnesota and Iowa. This was a notable place. While the community has eroded since those early days, the 1940 census gave Celina a population of 5, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation estimates that Celina still has 10 residents. There is no need to delete an article about a community which has historical significance. I've expanded the article. More work could be done. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Email deliverability index[edit]

Email deliverability index (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)

"Email deliverability index" is not a concept covered in reliable sources. Notability is not established at all. While I could not check all the cited sources, it's likely they do not mention the concept at all (that seems to be the case for The Complete Guide to E-mail Marketing How to Create Successful, Spam-Free Campaigns to Reach Your Target Audience and Increase Sales), and probably the others too judging Google Books search. MarioGom (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Email deliverability (currently redirected to cold email) which is a notable topic though the index, if it exists, isn’t. Mccapra (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article if it contains original research or unverified content, which violates Wikipedia's no original research policy. Wikipedia requires all information to be verifiable and sourced from reliable, published sources. --Loewstisch (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — I disagree with the keep & redirect !vote in that doing so implies that the term is a potentially notable one. Certainly, you can create such an index, but it isn't among the more established email metrics which are alluded to but not well fleshed out in the 1st and 2nd editions of Chad White's work which is the first citation. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 14:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KumoMTA[edit]

KumoMTA (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 meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. MarioGom (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. MarioGom (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halon_(software) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halon_(software) are fine, but this is nominated for Deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhillyer (talk • contribs) 13:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WHATABOUTX. There are many articles in Wikipedia that might need to be deleted, but this discussion is about KumoMTA, and it will be discussed based on its own merits, regardless of any other examples you find. MarioGom (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They don't appear much better, thank you for signaling them, I'll review for possible deletion as well. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Being hosted on GitHub isn't notable, anyone can throw anything up on the site. Sources found are the GitHub repository, their own website and Reddit thread. Nothing we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voronoi manifold[edit]

Voronoi manifold (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, and contains a large amount of unsourced content that cannot be verified. MarioGom (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge verified portions into Voronoi diagram. Owen× ☎ 15:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do not merge. Concept appears not to have been taken up in the scientific literature; Google Scholar finds only two publications (one an unpublished report) that mention this phrase. They don't cite each other and appear to be using the phrase to mean different things. Not significant in the mathematical literature nor as something that is worth mentioning in the Voronoi diagram article. (To compare: Google Scholar claims some 62k hits for Voronoi diagram, which currently has 44 citations, so inclusion there would need some evidence that, among subtopics of Voronoi diagrams, this is in the 0.1% of them that are most relevant.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: if the verified portions are the empty set, as David Eppstein says, then my "merge verified portions" trivially degenerates into a Delete. Which is to say, let's do what Dr. Eppstein suggests. Owen× ☎ 13:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. with a side warning that if you re-create this again, Manvith Manu, you will be sanctioned for disruptive editing. The prior draft with the AfC history is now at Draft:Varthur Santhosh (old draft). Star Mississippi 14:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Varthur Santhosh[edit]

Varthur Santhosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This page has been speedied and recreated several times. There is a claim in the article to redirect to Bigg Boss Kannada (season 10) which stops me from deleting it per WP:A7 / WP:G11, but I think a discussion is warranted. If the article is deleted, I recommend salting to avoid re-creation (which would then be able to be done simply using WP:G4 anyway). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why you are deleting those information Manvith Manu (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The biographies of living persons policy is long-standing. Effectively, you cannot write about living people without immediately giving high-quality sources of where you got the information from. Without this, it is far too easy to accidentally libel someone without realising, so it is prohibited by policy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify by un-redirecting Draft:Varthur Santhosh and deleting mainspace copy and paste move Unsourced BLP with tendentious bypass of AfC by disruptive editor. I don't know how to !vote in this scenario. The draft has the meaningful history including the AfC decline, while the mainspace page has nothing. Uhai (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you gather information from source about this person and give information about him

  People should know about such good personality Manvith Manu (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I answered this on your talk page already. Uhai (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But I am requesting to create page about Varthur Santhosh Manvith Manu (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Your request means very little without what is required to make an article. Draftifying it will give you the opportunity to bring it into compliance. Failure to do so will mean it will be deleted. Repeated attempts to create an article without the required sourcing and notability will likely cause you to be blocked from editing here entirely. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: Inexperienced doesn't realize that BLP articles need to be at a certain quality before they can be in main article space. Draftify this so as to give them time to work on it. UtherSRG (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ineligible for draftification as the draft with history, including AfC decline, already exists at Draft:Varthur Santhosh (now converted to a redirect) and creator pasted the contents over the redirect in the mainspace created by previous draftification. Uhai (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Community decision (aka AFD) can overrule user objection of draftification, and given the WP:CIR issues here, this is fully acceptable. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: Not an A7 case. The individual was caught up in a controversy and made headlines after being arrested by the forest department for supposedly wearing a tiger claw pendant during a reality show, where he was a contestant. The article is currently unsourced and should be moved to draft to provide the author with the necessary time and space to improve it. Some sources i came across The Times of India, LiveMint, Times Of India, The Hindu, and DNA.AmusingWeasel (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even with the sources above, coverage is trivial; most have more space for photos than actual text in the article. He was on a TV show and wound up in trouble with the law is about what they all show, there really isn't much extra added. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per above. Not outright non-notable. Capitals00 (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge 9 Records[edit]

Bridge 9 Records (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 sufficient completely intellectually independent, significant, secondary coverage on the company and after a quick WP:BEFORE, I deemed that it lacks sufficient WP:ORGDEPTH coverage to satisfy NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Massachusetts. Graywalls (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: I found these articles: [31], [32]. They seem sufficiently in-depth, but might be too interview-y to establish notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Certainly one of the more important indies in the sense used at WP:MUSIC; the label released some of the most noteworthy punk rock of the last two decades (note that the nominator gutted this article of its discography immediately before nominating it for deletion, and it should be restored). As for coverage, there's more beyond what WeirdNAnnoyed dug up: [33], [34], [35], [36]. Amusingly, the label even makes the punk tabloids when Ben Affleck wears their t-shirt. Chubbles (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Also want to add: The Athletic: "one of Boston's most influential hardcore and punk labels" and Washington Post coverage. Issan Sumisu (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. While the rewrite solved to the copy paste, there is still no sourcing which means no article. Star Mississippi 14:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Desborough Town Football Club season[edit]

2023–24 Desborough Town Football Club season (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 a copy and paste of the Brighton one. There is info on Desborough Town but it fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt – Besides the article being terribly copied and pasted, what's the point of a ninth-tier team having a dedicated season article? Svartner (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as hoax - no, this club did not sign Brighton players... GiantSnowman 11:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• G3 Article should have been tagged G3 and not send to AfD. Govvy (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've removed all mentions of Brighton and remind others that AFD articles can still be edited. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 14:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan Scene[edit]

Afghan Scene (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)

unsourced article about a magazine, written like an ad copy. fails general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Afghanistan. ltbdl (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. I couldn't find any reliable sources about this magazine. Google mostly doesn't mention anything about the magazine and all of the links that were shown were about the Fall of Kabul that happened in 2021. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 04:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucario[edit]

Lucario (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)

Regretfully, I am forced to nominate Lucario for deletion, as there's no evidence that the concerns of the previous AfD this year were addressed in recreating the article. I went into the article legitimately hoping that new solid sources were found to back up the notability of Lucario but ultimately found nothing - it's largely sourced to listicles that often discuss numerous other Pokemon besides Lucario.

Ultimately what the previous AfD this year found remains exactly the same, Lucario simply isn't notable at all. Again, it would be great to be proven wrong, but what I see here does not cut the mustard or merit a recreation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Despite Zx's assertion that these are "listicles", I will assert that they do discuss the subject in a decent enough amount of coverage to display its importance outside of just being a character in the context of the series:

• We have tangible results illustrating the character's recognizability and popularity, through a poll by the company, a monthly average of search engine results across multiple companies, and one regarding...er..."fan works".
• Analysis of why the character is popular and that impact
• Analysis of it's design, both positive and negative, and more importantly an example of the shortcomings of "Gen 4"'s design as a whole

Now while I get this isn't the strongest of articles, I will contend after the sources presented the article demonstrates real world notability in the same way Snorlax was argued to during its AfD: that it's a recognizable icon, and unlike Snorlax, I can at least cite some discussion here. While I'd personally agree the article is on the weaker end, what's cited here I feel demonstrates that in the manner it was presented. Thank you.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article you can pick out from the article's sources of any significant length that is specifically about Lucario. That already makes it far weaker in coverage than Snorlax. I don't think the two are comparable. If I asked for the WP:THREE they'd all be clickbait top-10 lists and that is a bad sign.

I am also not particularly enthused about your wholesale reversion of my edits to the article in an attempt to at least remedy some of its problems. I do not see a reason for doing so besides "I don't like these edits", which is going dangerously into WP:OWN territory. Editors do not unilaterally control articles, please open a discussion instead of simply deleting anything you do not like. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the additions came across as trivial and were why I avoided those from the original article (i.e. the Sly Cooper comparison is...odd), and that the recurring comment about its possible origin isn't dev info. Additionally the articles cited discuss him in some degree of depth, and WP:THREE is an essay, not a strict guideline: it's purpose is to help one argue for an article's existence. In this case, I feel the print source (which in turn cited Official Nintendo Magazine's Thomas Elliot calling it "the best designed Pokemon" in its universe, but I felt that may have been non-independent quote given who produced ONM so I opted not to cite that), TechRaptor, and The Gamer's own analysis which go into depth and devoted several paragraphs to discussing the subject). I am confused too at your assertion of "clickbait"; they are, again, discussing the subject at hand not tricking the reader, so that was...weird to bring up?

The point of notability is to establish that a subject is discussed and there's significant enough discussion on a subject to warrant an encyclopedic look at it. There are sources that I could have cited that you've argued for before, like articles like this that you felt were strong enough for Felyne, or content like this that you argued worked as WP:SIGCOV for Sagat (Street Fighter). But I felt those didn't provide notability due to a lack of discussing the work as a fictional character.

The article is organized the way it is on purpose. While I spoke in anger, it isn't a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's intended to give a proper flow to the reception section.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:THREE is an essay, but WP:GNG is the policy. Thus far no sources have been raised that show this subject meets the notability guidelines. We are looking for significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources that discuss Lucario as a subject. What do we have? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy🏄 The TechRaptor article devotes four paragraphs of discussion to the character. The Gamer, while it can be argued shouldn't count towards notability per WP:VG/S, devoted 3 paragraphs in their own discusison. IGN had one author devote a paragraph each to discussing the character across two articles. The Centennial article devoted several paragraphs discussing the subject but admittedly some were for gameplay and intended to be cited for there if the article was further developed. Outside of this article there is also this paper published in Scandia that discusses it in the context of the film and relation to medieval imagery as a familiar, but I wasn't sure the best way to work that in or if it was more for the film. It could be bolstered by additional sources from The Gamer but I didn't want to work more valnet into this.

While I'll admit this article is weaker, I feel the assertions in the AfD argument are trying to paint it as strictly relying on UGO.com or Complex style lists that aren't saying anything, when there are tangible thoughts at least being cited. The assertion of "clickbait" is, at the very least, unfounded.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have some reading to do then. I'll take a look at these. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Given the current reliable references demonstrating notability from both a critical and audience perspective as well as the arguments presented by Kung Fu Man, I don't exactly see a reasonable cause for why this article should be deleted given how this article generally falls in line with notability presented in other similar articles. The Scandia article is especially of note given how it's a direct analysis into the influence that would later inspire Lucario's role in his dedicated film. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Despite my previous afd on Lucario (2nd nomination), I feel like it might be barely passing WP:GNG after the improvement of reception section (furry fandom and stuff). GreenishPickle! (🔔) 08:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Pokémon: Lucario and the Mystery of Mew - The best source presented is clearly the Scandia paper, which is a goood source, clearly meeting GNG. However, the paper discusses the character within the context of the film, as Kung Fu Man said. So we have a page on the film, that could be expanded on the subject of the introduction of Lucario. There is mergeable content here regardless of whether this page is kept or not. But then, should this page exist in its own right? There is no real case at this point for a spin out of the Lucario character from the film article. We aren't even close to size arguments for that. The question is whether there is significant coverage that treats the character apart from the film. The problems with TheGamer were admitted but WP:VG/S also raises issues with Techraptor. In both cases, arguments could be made that the articles in these can be reliable and independent, but from where I am coming from, I don't see articles listing characters as being good examples of secondary sources. This, I think, is what the nom. means by listicles. It is the Pokemon franchise that is notable, and because it's notable, we get lists of the characters, but these don't really speak to significance of the character outside of the franchise, and notability is not inherited. So at this point I feel that we have to cover Lucario per the Scandia article, but the place to cover that is in the film article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sort of torn on this one. Still thinking about whether it is sound to base notability from self-evident cultural significance inferred from very broad but shallow coverage, even if few sources really cover or analyse the subject matter in detail. I am mindful that the character articles deletion trend is a little mired in a difference of philosophy over notability, and I think it would help to have better guidance or more discussions over what approach is best as there's been a lot of these sort of articles deleted recently. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is whether an article is notable if literally all coverage of any significance comes from blatant content farm articles, which listicles are.

I'd say the answer is "absolutely not", because content farming is literally an attempt to flood the internet with minor and trivial content in order to game the search results. Its the antithesis of the reason the significant coverage criteria exists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I blatantly disagree with that assertion that they're "content farm articles". Tangible thoughts are being cited here on the character and why it's important. It's not "10 THINGS YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS CHARACTER" or "What reddit thinks about THIS!" It's thought out statements that are discussing what it is and either critiquing its design or importance, and to a smaller extent its recognizability, which many articles on here are built around to the same degree. Including a few I'll note by you or works you've argued for in the past.

You can argue it's on the weaker end of notability, I'd argue bigger sources would indeed be nice. But it discusses the character significantly in an encyclopedic tone for reception and establishes importance to those not familiar with the media. That's what notability is for.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I do not see any reason to delete this. I believe the article is notable enough to stay, and Lucario's pretty popular within the Pokémon fandom. Again, I believe it should stick around, as it’s pretty notable. Super yoshi013021 (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITSPOPULAR. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: So while digging through Japanese sources, found that the character was used to promote fitness for children across Japan for young children, which was done by video during COVID, and then directly post COVID. There's also a LOT of articles discussing that, not only the 'why' but with some giving reactions to it/the character and its usage.[37][38][39]. There's also the Pokéfuta manhole project, which had the character promoting that directly as well. I'm still digging through Japanese sources but yeah, that's a thing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Source 1: It is mostly restating a press release. It's arguably more of a WP:PRIMARY source. Source 2: Trivial mention of Lucario. Source 3: Same exact press release as in Famitsu, duplicate source. This can all be summed up in one sentence, "Lucario was used to promote fitness in kids". Re: the manholes, a massive amount of Pokemon featured in that project, so it doesn't really involve Lucario specifically. It's more something to note in a possible "Cultural impact of Pokemon" article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The Famitsu article states why the character was chosen for the promotion: "ルカリオは『ふくつのこころ』と『せいしんりょく』を特性として持つポケモンです。" and it mentions it again in the article and a few others, so yes, the use of the character was specific. I'll point out, again, in the past you argued a street named after Snorlax along with several other Pokemon counted significantly towards its notability, despite no reason given as to why that name was chosen. Additionally you argued in the past this counted as notability for Felyne, despite being a promotion that, again, didn't discuss the why. Why do those meet the threshold but here where there's a reason given as to why these don't?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The IGN article isn't a copypaste of the press release, it has original content there. It is a secondary source with analysis of the information. Famitsu is literally a press release that was posted verbatim on another site. These are primary sources. Not secondary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There are several other articles covering the character's usage in this manner: 4Gamer, GameSetWatch, 5channel and 47News for example. These are not all press releases, but secondary sources. You're moving the goal posts.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  These are primary. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not all of them, unless you really want to argue the newscast reacting in surprise was. SoraNews24 also covered it, and while not discussed on WP:VG/S as far as I can see they are cited in several books under their new and old name (RocketNews24) and in published works on Google Scholar. Come on guys, please stop making me chase the goal.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. While it is important for the article to grow more notable, I feel like the issues at AfD have been adequately addressed. Particularly, its use as a mascot, commentary on its design, and the furry angle are intriguing. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Based on more or less Kung Fu Man's initial argument. There is enough discussion here volumewise to fullfill WP:WHYN. And if sources are considered reliable in the context of video games, I am not much concered if they are structured in the form of a list or not. Daranios (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is some sustained coverage on Lucario. It is significant coverage, but also not very deep. In some cases, that coverage is described in excessive detail to emphasize the coverage is indeed significant coverage in a way that gives it undue weight. But at the end of the day it's there, and its scarcely enough. That the commentary is fixated on comparing Lucario to Mewtwo, Anubis or Digimon still belies the fact that these are independent and analytical ideas, just shallow ones. Depth of ideas in significant coverage is secondary to whether it provides enough of a perspective to inform an article without inference, which it does. That said, I think the practice of stuffing nominated articles with unnecessary detail to 'protect' notability is not really necessary and clutters the article. But there's also been a lot of good work done too. That said, I guess the next step for this article is a bit of a cleanup. But that's not a notability issue. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep While none of the sources are particularly great they all are about Lucario. There is coverage. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. It's certainly weaker than some other articles but it definitely has enough to stand on its own for now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karen L. Parker[edit]

Karen L. Parker (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 clear notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'm sure she must have been written about somewhere, but I can't find much... [40] and [41]. Primary source and one showing they named a scholarship after her, which implies notability, but no sourcing... Even what's used now in the article is trivial. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, California, Michigan, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill considered naming a school building after her: UNC-Chapel Hill seeking final submissions to rename campus buildings with racist ties (News & Observer, 2021, "Karen L. Parker was the first Black woman undergraduate at UNC and chronicled her years as a student during the civil rights movement.") At the UNC Library archive Karen L. Parker Diary, Letter, and Clippings, there is biographical information included with an overview and details about her writing, See also [42]. Beccaynr (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I added many sources and expanded the content. Sources now prove notability. Rublamb (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY and the sustained coverage that helps support WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability. Beccaynr (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Rublamb and Beccaynr have clearly demonstrated that Parker meets GNG. Excellent work, both of you. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is evidence of notability, and it has been over time. I think it should be added to the Civil Rights Movement Category as that group may add more over time. But this is much better than many stub articles we have on wiki.Jsgoodrich (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Christmas time – WP:SNOW keep. – S. Rich (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Expanded and sourced since nomination, WP:BASIC is met. Sam Sailor 08:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jasper O'Farrell. As a viable ATD since a case has been made for why the prior one resulting from the prior AfD didn't work. Editors are welcome to discuss alternate targets, but there is a clear consensus this shouldn't exist as an article. Star Mississippi 14:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O'Farrell Street[edit]

O'Farrell Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A list of districts is not a Wikipedia page. Xx236 (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Xx236 (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Originally a redirect. Xx236 (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I gather it is the central street in a notable neighborhood but it's plain that it goes through a lot of the rest of the city too. No claim that it is notable in its own right. Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no objection to the redirect from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O'Farrell Street, although I note that the attempted 1 sentence rewrite of the article did indicate that Jasper O'Farrell is the best redirect target. I went searching for stuff about the street, and instead hit several biographies of Jasper O'Farrell almost straightaway, after going through a load of things that turned out to be simple street addresses, including Tuomey's History of Sonoma County, California and the hyperbolic The Immortal San Franciscans for Whom the Streets Were Named. Uncle G (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of machinima works. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zinwrath[edit]

Zinwrath (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 doesn't seem like there has been much written about this machinima film; I haven't been able to find significant coverage. The sources I've found consist of:

1. A 2011 paper by Stanford's Henry Lowood titled "Perfect capture: Three takes on replay, machinima and the history of virtual worlds" where Zinwrath is merely mentioned in a list of examples. (This segment can also be found in Lowood's 2010 book The Machinima Reader)
2. Lowood's 2009 "Warcraft Adventures: Texts, Replay, and Machinima in a Game-Based Storyworld" where it's, again, just mentioned.
3. A 2007 hundred-word article on Engadget
4. A 2009 Engadget interview with one of the people who worked on it, where less than a hundred words are dedicated to Zinwrath in general (there was a previous video also containing Zinwrath in the title).
5. A 2008 igromania.ru article, with a paragraph about Zinwrath and Illegal Danish: Super Snacks

Thus, I'd propose a redirect to List of machinima works, where it already has an entry. toweli (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Video games. toweli (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Great work on doing a WP:BEFORE. I was also able to find a passing mention in World of WarCraft Magazine. Regardless, passing mentions fall short of significant coverage needed for notability. The coverage is too short to evidence even basic things like what the film is, what happens in it, and how it was received. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Government Mamit College[edit]

Government Mamit College (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 refernces outside of press release Sohom (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Mizoram. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• pls do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolcolney (talk • contribs) 05:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Short question, why ? If you want the page to be kept, you need to prove that the page is notable and that requires you to show that atleast three reliable, independent third-party sources have covered the subject in-depth. Sohom (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Coolcolney^^ Sohom (talk) 13:45, 5 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 12:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sohom I will update with more source

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. We still need some more opinions here. There hasn't been much participation in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find any sources that confirm independent notability for this school.Cortador (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. The history is there if independent coverage is eventually found for these to convert to merges Star Mississippi 14:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Harvest (audio drama)[edit]

The Harvest (audio drama) (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 independently notable, does not pass GNG. Best redirected to Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. I am also nominating the following related pages because they exhibit the same characteristics. They do not meet the GNG, and they ought to be redirected to the same target:

The Axis of Insanity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Arrangements for War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Roof of the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Medicinal Purposes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Scherzo (audio drama) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Wormery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Game (audio drama) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dreamtime (audio drama) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Catch-1782 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Radio. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This should probably be added to the group under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colditz (audio drama). ~Kvng (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kvng I was planning to create another bundle of these articles here, but I ran out of time and it slipped my mind. In my opinion bundles are best kept at 10 articles or less to allow realistic scrutiny. Since no one has opined here yet, I'll add 9 more to this AFD shortly. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No responses, please do not add more articles to this bundled nomination that will likely close as No consensus if this continues. I hope you notified each article creator of this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Delete all Lacks significant independent coverage. Reywas92^Talk 20:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep Scherzo, which has independent notability as the direct inspiration for The Message (podcast) as documented in Slate here. [43] I’d also note that all of these will have at least one independent source in Doctor Who Magazine, which will have reviewed all of them, and which is published independently of the BBC. But with Scherzo I can confirm two are available. El Sandifer (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That Slate reference to Scherzo provided above is not significant coverage, it's a clear passing mention, stating that one element of Scherzo inspired one element of The Message. Also, the statement that Doctor Who magazine has reviewed them all feels a bit like WP:SOURCESEXIST. We need evidence of that- citations-, so we may check if the reviews were significant, reliable, independent, etc etc. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s certainly enough of a reference to create a “cultural impact” section out of it, if only a sentence or two long. That’s hardly fleeting—it’s significant information about the story. As for DWM, I’m hardly speculating on the source existing. I guarantee you every one of these has a review. But to stick with Scherzo, looks like it got a review in issue 341, on top of a preview in 338, both of which will be a solid couple of paragraphs. And DWM, though it has a license from the BBC and scads of access to people on the show for interviews (not that there was a show to have access to at the time of these audios) is independent—it’s published by Panini, not the BBC, has its own editor, and is given leeway to publish negative reviews, which it often did. So I’m not speculating here—all of these have at least one viable source, Scherzo has two. El Sandifer (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Great, thanks for the information about the magazine. It's a shame none of the Dr Who audiodrama articles I've seen seem to cite it, perhaps that can be done. I don't think the Slate source helps for AFD purposes for Scherzo. Sure you could create a one-line cultural impact section from it, but it doesn't contribute to Scherzo meeting the GNG. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I strongly disagree that “is the direct inspiration for a clearly independently notable work” is a trivial mention. That’s clearly significant, to my mind. So I stand by my strong keep for Scherzo, and a more moderate keep for everything else given that it’s all sure to have one source—-I’d at least want to confirm that neither Dreamwatch nor SFX were regularly running reviews as well. Ooh, and the Celestial Toyroom would also be an obvious source to check. But with three separate magazines that are all reasonably likely to have been covering the Big Finish releases and one that definitely was I think the odds that these meet the GNG are strong. El Sandifer (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for giving your views. Let me know if you do find reviews in those other magazines. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 08:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Will do, but none of those magazines have the sorts of thorough indexes that Doctor Who Magazine does, so it’s trickier. Glancing at a random 2015 issue of SFX I can find online, I see that they are running Big Finish reviews at that point, but I couldn’t tell you when they started doing that. Still, only increases the odds that all of these are sourceable. El Sandifer (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]