The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Joyous! | Talk 04:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Trunk[edit]

Penelope Trunk (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 all criteria for WP:WRITER. The majority of cited sources are primary, meaning the article is sourced mostly from statements she has made about herself. The secondary sources are of poor quality, consisting largely of blogs, opinion pieces, dead links and pages which mention her without containing substantive information. Several of the cited sources don't mention her at all and appear to have nothing to do with her. A number of statements made in the article are unverified, with cited sources that do not support the statement. Because of this, and the excessive reliance on primary sources, the accuracy and neutrality of the article is questionable. Furthermore, the are numerous WP:COI issues with this article. In [this blog post] Trunk admits that the editor of her blog edits her Wikipedia page. [The creator of this article] has contributed nothing to Wikipedia except for creating this (promotional) article and editing it once; this person may be Trunk herself or somebody connected to her. This further calls into question the accuracy and neutrality of the article. Due to conflict of interest issues, shortage of quality sources and failure to meet notability guidelines, I believe the article can't be salvaged and should be deleted. Baronet13 (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: well, I've spent about 20 minutes on this so far and it's clear that whoever maint tagged this article - festooned it, see diff from before I started checking [1] - didn't actually check any of the sources. Many are listed as irrelevant citations, but are relevant and do support the material. She is widely cited for Six Sex Scenes, and I expect she has a solid case for WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. But I'm still digging through this excessive tagging. If COI editors are constantly making trouble here, AfD isn't the venue for that. -- asilvering (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a yes to both WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG, I'd say. I've added reviews for Making Scenes, and Six Sex Scenes is definitely notable as well. I presume her book Brazen Careerist is as well, but I don't want to dig through all the promo material to prove it when her fiction already shows WP:NAUTHOR to me. She had her divorce written about at length in the NYT, she caused a bunch more headlines for her tweets about her miscarriage - there's all kinds of WP:GNG material here, along with a whole lot of gossip-rag-type stuff. Not to mention that when people write about her it's with an "of course, everyone knows about Penelope Trunk" kind of tone. I'm sure this is due to her being, as Frank Bures wrote, "a ruthless, relentless self-promoter". Many of the previous editors of the page have been blocked as socks, and the article is not in great shape. Possibly it should be page-protected to save everyone else's time, but she's notable and the article should remain. -- asilvering (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per source filtering by Asilvering and others in the three previous AfDs, particularly reviews satisfying WP:NAUTHOR and the New York writeup (The Cut is a vertical of New York magazine, see WP:RSP). Many of the arguments in previous AfDs no longer apply ("sources may eventually appear," "one event" in 2011). The article is indeed a mess right now, but AfD is not cleanup. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree that the sourcing in this article is poor and mainly comprised of first-party sources. She's a tough one to find third-party sources for because she was a syndicated columnist -- published internationally in such papers as The Boston Globe, The Guardian and the Ottawa Citizen-- so any name search within a repository like ProQuest (which any tenured wiki editor can access via the Wikimedia Library) or newspaper archives bring up many more articles that she wrote, versus those written about her, but in doing some digging I did find some information about her from reliable sources.

I'm not sure if you have access to Newspapers.com, but I found this front page story about her in The Capital Times just prior to the release of her book about careers, which also mentions that she was "cited by both Time magazine and London's Guardian newspaper as a new breed of worker." That article also confirms that her birth name is Adrienne Roston. There's this article from The Arizona Star's Careers section where her blog was listed as one "5 job blogs you should be reading".

She also made international news in 2009 for a tweet she made about her miscarriage that went viral -- if you google "penelope trunk miscarriage" and you'll find articles from a multitude of publications in both the US and the UK, including The Guardian, the Irish Independent, Huffington Post, New York magazine's The Cut, Marie Claire, and scholarly articles on JSTOR, etc...

She is seemingly a go-to commentator about careers, including this article from the ABA Banking Journal about her thoughts about "the new workplace" and this article from Forbes, which also states that she is a "frequent commentator about workplace trends, and she has appeared on outlets such as 20/20, CNN, and NPR." Inc. magazine also called her arguably the world's most influential guidance counselor.

While I can find several places citing that she worked under the pseudonym Adrienne Eisen, I have yet to find a reliable source to confirm that she and Trunk are one in the same, but if true, then as Eisen she would seem to be notable in that she was one of the first people to publish a web-based, hyptertext-linked novel (titled Six Sex Scenes, described in this article from PN Review, and found archived here), which is all the more notable given that she is a woman, IMO.

In short, I vote against the article's deletion. It needs work for sure, but I think she has enough notability and coverage in reliable sources to remain. Marchije•^speak/_peek 01:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding that Inc Magazine article! She seems to really love citing it when talking to other journalists but I wasn't having luck turning up the original article itself. -- asilvering (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources, including those provided above, clearly demonstrate subject notability, satisfying WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NWRITER. Shawn Teller (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - needs major work, particularly regarding the use of primary sources, but the article's subject clearly passes WP:WRITER and WP:GNG. I don't think the problems are severe enough to justify WP:TNT, though I can certainly see the argument for it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:55, 1 March 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 Andorran permanent representative to the United Nations in New York City. Joyous! | Talk 04:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Narcís Casal de Fonsdeviela[edit]

Narcís Casal de Fonsdeviela (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Andorra, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. BruceThomson (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Andorran permanent representative to the United Nations in New York City. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I can agree with Clarityfiend about the redirect. If SIGCOV emerges someone can convert the redirect. Lightburst (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Coverage doesn't support that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, If not delete. Alex-h (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested. Ambassadors are not automatically notable per WP:NPOL. Not otherwise notable per WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 1 March 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 Fender amplifiers Joyous! | Talk 04:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC). Oops that page is a redirect. Please merge to Fender amplifier instead. Thanks to Mikeblas for catching that. Joyous! Noise! 15:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Prosonic[edit]

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

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable product. No references since 2015, and aside from reviews and forum posts, a plurality of substantial references to meet WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT don't seem to be available. Mikeblas (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Products. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  KEEP as an owner of the Fender Prosonic and still playing the AMP as my primary go to AMP, having a reliable source code for its history helps greatly with understanding the amps short and misunderstood legacy. Keeping a historic artifact will make this amp rise to the level of sort after vintage class amps.I vote keep 71.243.130.211 (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that if we keep the article, it would have to be reduced to only a few sentences, because there are no sources cited in the article. Wikipedia no longer allows publication of unsourced and unverified information. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: Very informative page Stenkamon (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Has an entry in 365 Guitars, Amps & Effects You Must Play: The Most Sublime, Bizarre and Outrageous Gear Ever By Dave Hunter (pg. 240) and mentions of importance in the Guitar Amp Encyclopedia by Brian Tarquin (pgs. 21, 23, 90). In the case that someone doesn't believe it meets WP:GNG, Redirect to List of Fender products to WP:PRESERVE. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entry in 365 Guitars... is a one-paragraph capsule review, so I don't think it demonstrates WP:SIGCOV. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Length is not how significant coverage is defined; it's significantly more than a trivial mention. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Fender products. I can't find a way to view the entry in 365 Guitars, but even if I assume it's long enough to constitute significant coverage, we would only have one source establishing notability, as Guitar Amp Encyclopedia is just passing mentions. Two sources contributing to notability is a bare minimum acceptable. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Cielquiparle below. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Fender products per above. If a single reference in a list of 365 items is the best we can do for notability, I'm just not convinced. Mangoe (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is a hard one, compared to some of the other Fender product pages that have not been "kept". Redirecting to List of Fender products doesn't work, in that that list page currently exists as a list of notable Fender products that have their own Wikipedia pages only. I found some other coverage as well in The Guitar and Rock Equipment (2002) by Nick Frieth. Furthermore, I couldn't help wondering what "reviews" Mikeblas found, because product reviews in reliable sources could definitely count as sigcov in my book. If we keep the article for Fender Prosonic, we'll have to gut it to only contain information that is sourced. We could redirect or merge to Fender (company), but I almost wonder if the information actually belongs in an article on guitar amps, like Guitar amplifier. Still thinking...but I have been pondering this for a while. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Outside of a proper redirect location, I still vote to redirect to List of Fender Products to WP:PRESERVE page history in-case anyone wants to create a Fender amps page. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree that the page should not be outright deleted. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article can't be redirected to List of Fender products as that page is, itself, a redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, yeah, that's just a shorthand for the egregiously long title List of products manufactured by Fender Musical Instruments Corporation. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Why? I Ask You were right! Fender amplifier exists as a product page! So we can solve this somehow as a redirect or a merge, or...? Cielquiparle (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, definitely merge! Made that earlier redlink a redirect. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Fender amplifiers. Normally I don't like to !vote "merge" when zero sources are cited in the article, but in this case, we've found some sources on the Fender Prosonic over the course of the AfD discussion, which could also be merged. The information contained in those sources, however, is not nearly as detailed as all the unsourced copy in the current Fender Prosonic page, so it's hard to imagine keeping it without completely gutting it (essentially performing WP:TNT). So for now, it's like a compromise solution: Merge information about Fender Prosonic into the Fender amplifiers page; Fender Prosonic then becomes a redirect to Fender amplifiers; and then someday when another editor feels compelled to try to create a standalone article on the Prosonic, fully sourced, perhaps the option exists for them to try to convert that redirect back into a standalone page (and for what it's worth, the article history will still be accessible within the redirect). And hopefully, in the course of merging content from Fender Prosonic, more attention will be given to the Fender amplifiers page itself, which is also in need of TLC. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Fender amplifiers per Cielquiparle. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus suggests that there is not enough significant coverage from independent reliable sources provide the quality of notability for this magazine. Joyous! | Talk 05:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Circus Bazaar Magazine[edit]

Circus Bazaar Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nominating because the magazine only has superficial coverage in other locations. 180.150.37.213 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Completing nomination of behalf of nominator. Above text is copied from article talk page. As for my view, article was created as a draft, and was given an AfC acceptance by an account which was blocked the next day due to sockpuppetry. Article creator removed a prod tag applied by the above IP, in which the edit summary included "Also removed illegitimate delete request and noterity complaint based on an extortion attempt made against company by bad faith Wiki actors. Ref public complaints and posting of extortion claims online." I have not yet analyzed the provided refs to form an opinion of my own on notability. --Finngall ^talk 23:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I've been unable to find sourcing which satisfies WP:GNG. Nearly all of the sourcing appears to be by unreliable sources or Circus Bazaar and its affiliated people, or otherwise doesn't provide in-depth coverage of the magazine itself. It's possible someone who can read Norwegian could do better. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please re-examine the nature of the coverage in these references. Circus Bazaar Magazine has gained significant notoriety in the country of Norway as well as abroad. Many of these articles are not simply passing mentions but are built entirely on the output of the magazine and its production of various media. Circus Bazaar Magazine is a "news generator". Not simply reporting on events but because of the fact it is creating original media, other publications often report on the capital that is "created" by the magazine.

  Also, many of these articles are in the Norwegian language so consideration must be given to this. Although the magazine is in English a native Norwegian is best to make any determination on its notoriety. Such as myself. At the end of the day, Circus Bazaar Magazine is an in-print serial publication with a decade-long history and is responsible for genuine social change through its work in the country of Norway. It is distributed by all the major bookstores and literary houses in Norway. It is also shelved in libraries all over the country and is distributed to subscribers and accademic institutions all over the world.

  All proper publication information supporting this is incorporated into this article and I have added a multitude of supporting references that span National Swedish Media, most major media outlets in the country of Norway as well as several international media platforms such as Vice World News and CounterPunch.

  The above statement that such sources are unreliable is absurd. Aftenposten, Nettivisen, TV2, Swedish National News to name just a few are some of the most credible news sources in Scandinavia and the references in question often allude to highly controversial and sensitive domestic political matters of which Circus Bazaar Magazine has been the producer. Such prestegious publications simply cannot be labelled as unreliable. They are the institutional back bone of media legitimacy here. That various references are based on internal sources to the magazine itself is a natural consequence of the fact that it is a producer of media and should be seen as a way to legitimise the reference from other publications. This is not a material product but creator of original non-material media capital. Its a Magazine.

  By extention of this it is worth mentioning the various international film productions produced "entirely by the publication" and are distributed by international distributors worldwide and that now count in the millions of views. Is Wu Tang Clan not notable? (As just one example) The noteriety is clearly visable. This can easily be found by a simple look at the references given that link direct to distributors.

  Finally and in referece to claims of "extortion attempts made against the company by bad faith Wiki actors". Yes being a budding Wiki Editor exposed to various online platforms in the country of Norway it is a simple task to observe the public publication of a multitute of threats being made to this publication of which is the basis of my first major article. It is interesting that such dates listed in the screenshots of the threats align nicely with the negetive attacks on the article. For reference please visit:

  New to Oslo Facebook Group which is the primary platfrom for foreign speaking workers in the country

  The Circus Bazaar Company Instagram Page.

  My final point here is that I have created this page in good faith with a great deal of investigative work. But if it is so that the creation of a Wiki page will result in extortion attempts against whatever entity in question I next choose to work on then the platform it self becomes a risk. This is a poor insentive structure for the capturing of honest people who with to contribute to the overall project.

  Monsieur Loya (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• gained significant notoriety in the country of Norway as well as abroad - It would be helpful if you could link, in this discussion, to the 3-5 best sources about Circus Bazaar (in any language). These would be sources which are about Circus Bazaar, and not about its affiliated people, published in reliable sources where neither the source nor author has any connection to Circus Bazaar. That would help participants here.
• I don't think I understand the "extortion attempts" so won't comment on those.
• It looks like literally all of your edits, in a number of articles, is to add content about people associated with Circus Bazaar. Do you have a connection to the subject? If so, you may want to see WP:PAID and WP:COI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you.

  Firstly to address your last point. No.

  Is it not in the nature of things to expand beyong the created wikipedia article one would first create in order to give it strength and legitimacy? I thought this was the point. When researching one particular topic one ultimatley gains knowledge of other areas that are related, without the need for this to be due to a related interest. I chose this article for the fact that the magazine appears to have undergone a significant expansion and is now being sold accross the country of Norway. This was an obvious gap and a worthly first choice.

  With regard to 3-5 sources. Let us take the most obvious example.

  Circus Bazaar Magazine is responsible for the breaking of a huge and systematic case of police miscontuct in the country of Norway. This resulted in the prosecution of the Oslo Police District as an institution. Quite signifcant actually for a small country such as Norway. This small, new and obscurer platform documented and was the primary source of this whole (very public and controversial) social event. It investigated, advocated and ran this until its conclusion and to which a time it then syndicated all this material accross all the major news platforms in Scandinavia. All of which wrote many articles and interviewed the owner and editor on its investigation.

  Nettivisen Norway: https://www.nettavisen.no/selv-drittsekker-skal-behandles-anstendig-av-politiet/s/12-95-3680934

  Swedish National News: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/oslopolisen-far-bota-for-tortyrliknande-arbetsmetoder

  Vice World News: https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz5maz/batons-and-starlight-tours-norwegian-police-accused-of-breaking-anti-torture-conventions

  Aftenposten Norway: https://www.aftenposten.no/oslo/i/m43O/oslopolitiet-godtar-ikke-foretaksstraff-etter-batong-episode

  TV2 Norway: https://www.tv2.no/2015/01/30/nyheter/6513993

  Point: The article in Vice World News is authored by the editor of Circus Bazaar Magazine but is obviousley edited by Vice World News Editorial Staff. Vice World News is by its very nature impartial and seperate from the subject. So I think this qualifies.

  What needs to be also understood here is that these publications in question are not generating their own news. They are not mearly interviewing the editorial staff of Circus Bazaar Magazine. All material being referenced and diseminated here is based on the investigative reporting of Circus Bazaar Magazine itself.

  Thank you and I hope this helps. Monsieur Loya (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for clarifying that you don't have a connection to the subject. Still, sorry to say, none of those sources are about Circus Bazaar. They are primarily about a police incident, and secondarily about the witness (someone involved with Circus Bazaar). There's almost nothing about the magazine. It's great that they got such a good scoop, but there's just not enough material to write a good article without relying on passing mentions or unreliable sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  All these articles refer to the magazine as the creator of this story and the information in these articles are based on interviews with the editor of the magazine. Should I rather attempt to write an article specifically on this "scoop" and then use Circus Bazaar Magazine as the primary reference for this article? Or would that then attract accusations that the sources are unreliable? With all respect, I do not understand this logic. If Circus Bazaar Magazine has a sufficiantly strong reputation and credibility basis for all these long standing news sources to follow in its investigative lead and completely reference it as a publication and film production house then I think it passes the test of a platform such as Wikipedia.

  Noteriety as you seem to define it cannot be the only criteria for which an article is deserving. That wikipedia would build its credibility on something as fickle as a popularity contest does not inspire.

  If a print publication that breaks stories as significant and well referenced as this (as one example) is deprived of a position inside the world "largest and most-read reference work in history" then we, and I am afraid yourself, are not doing our job as serious curators of the historical record.

  I fundementally disagree with the sentiments here and hope my point here is taken seriously. Monsieur Loya (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have now added a further citation + quote to the article push home the significance of the case broken by Circus Bazaar Magazine.

  The United States State Department Norwegian country report on Human Rights practices for 2013 would refer to this case under "Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" stating,

  "The constitution and law prohibit such practices. In May two Oslo police officers were filmed examining a suspected drug dealer’s mouth and throat with a thin telescoping metal baton. In response to media reports and inquiries from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the Oslo Police stated that such actions were legal. An earlier assessment by the Police University found the actions to be questionable since health personnel must conduct all bodily searches. The police launched an internal investigation and banned the use of the baton for mouth searches." Monsieur Loya (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2013humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2013&dlid=220317&anchor=section1#section1 Monsieur Loya (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In reference to the “extortion” referenced above, Monsieur Loya posted links to screenshots of this so-called extortion on their talk page. From the screenshots, the attempted extortion appears to be the work of garden variety scammers/spammers which can be safely ignored. --Finngall ^talk 14:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No good sources about the magazine. The "notoriety" is non-existant. The above defense of the article is all over the place, but contains no relevant points. The single search hit in Norwegian newspaper archives mentions Circus Bazaar in a photo byline. 2A01:799:19A1:C100:750D:97BF:E2DB:90EE (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I strongly oppose the deletion of the Circus Bazaar Magazine Wikipedia article. While it may not be a global household name, the magazine has a dedicated following and is widely available online and in major bookshops in Norway (Norli, Outland). As a subscriber myself, I can attest to its high quality content and unique perspectives being presented. Just because a publication isn't (yet) a mainstream success doesn't mean it shouldn't have a place on Wikipedia. Circus Bazaar deserves to be recognized for its contribution to the cultural landscape, and deleting its article would be a disservice to both the magazine and Wikipedia readers who may be interested in learning more about it.live and let live (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that "single search hit" provides only print editions of Norways biggest newspaper "Aftenposten" and is tagging the Magazine based on "yes" that byline to a photo. But what is the article about? And how many times does it mention the magazine, its investigations and a documentary it produced in the article itself?

I have linked that very article photographed and in the references above. Maybe you should look.

If my defence of this is "all over the place" then I think you should focus on the links in question. Not provide evidence of nothing.

As a matter of fact if you search the magazine in the same website you provide which is the National Library of Norway you will actually find the magazine itself. Click here....

Many of the major libraries in the country stock the magazine.

I do not want to make an accusations directly but given there is a conserted attempt to extort the magazine and this record is publically available I think is prudent to look carefully at these delete votes if they come from IP accounts with little or no edit history. Monsieur Loya (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Additional citiation: https://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/her-stapper-politiet-to-batonger-i-munnen-pa-mistenkt-narkoselger/6513993/ Monsieur Loya (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Monsieur Loya you can only !vote once so best to strike this additional "keep" (see Help:Cheatsheet). I will also say walls of text are unhelpful along with the extortion claims because you skewing into personal attacks and legal threats. Best to concentrate only on sources that meet WP:THREE and so far what you have provided is unconvincing in that regard. S0091 (talk) S0091 (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to my other "keep" vote? This is the first and only one. And in regard to extortion. Its a fact - so it needs to be raised. Thank you. Monsieur Loya (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have two bolded "Keep"s above. As far as extortion, I suggest reaching out to the Trust and Safety team and leave it with them to handle. S0091 (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is another user. Please retract. Monsieur Loya (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh...I see. I missed the signature. Yes, I will strike that comment. S0091 (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'd like to keep this but most of the article is cited to the journal's own site. All of that needs to come from 3rd party sources, or that content could legitimately be removed from the article. I removed the cites to IMDB and Youtube (those can be in the external links but not as references - they are not considered reference-worthy sources). I took a look at the news articles in the Norwegian papers and they all seemed to be about the same police incident; the role of CB was that it posted the video. Those articles are not about the magazine, and the magazine is only mentioned. So if there are 2-3 actual sources that are about the magazine and that provide the information in the article, then we could keep it. I'll check back. Oh, and some of the Norwegian sources are behind paywalls (e.g. Moss Avis) so I unfortunately can't see if those provide good info. If someone has access it would be great to get a short description of the relevant contents. Lamona (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the polite and thoughtful comment. Also thank you for the edits of the article with the hope of improving it.

  But please take into consideration that Circus Bazaar Magazine is small but has handled huge cases. It is incorrect to reduce the magazines contribution in this case to having posted a video. It discovered the case and ran a huge investigation. Found the witnesses and built a network of NGOs and government agencies to bring such a thing to public prominance. Which all these citations validate. It also produced a documentary "The Serpent in Paradise" on the issue.

  The reality is, as I have described above, that Circus Bazaar Magazine is a original media/news creator and quite often other media outlets are of course writing on material they produce rather than writing on the magazine itself. In fact there is an obvious conflict of interest as many of these publications are technically competitors and there is a natural insentive to simply run with a story and "tip the hat" as little as possible to the creator of the the material and facts. Nevertheless, this should be self evident and the very definition of how a small publication gains "noteriety".

  The noteriety of any such platform - even Wikipedia is not measured on the amount of times a competitor encylopedia makes an indepth bit of writing on it as a company, but by virtue of the articles it produces and its user base. It is exactly the same thing.

  At what point does a budding print magazine gain such noteriety? When a competitor news and media platform decides to promote them in contraditcion to its own market interests? I am sure that the news/media game does not work in such a way. Monsieur Loya (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Monsieur Loya: That's a common problem with newspapers and magazines--the bar for notability is the same as for most other subjects, but yes, it's not as likely that other reliable newspapers or magazines will write about a competitor unless they've done something really noteworthy. But that's not a flaw with Wikipedia's standards. Without verified references, there is no basis for an encyclopedia article on a subject, regardless of the subject. --Finngall ^talk 19:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I can accept that but then why on earth are these not verified references? There is absolutley nothing wrong with the references. Library reference systems in Norway all show that it is a legitimately published serial publication with formal with ISBN and ISSN numbers. Plus there is a wealth of book stores accross the country selling it and they all have it on their websites for promotional purposes.

These are entirely indpendent and unbiased institutiions. Far more so than your average media house.

Do these hold weight? Monsieur Loya (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources serve two purposes: verifiability and notability. There is no doubt the publication exists, sources support that from a verifiability perspective but that is not enough to meet notability. In order to meet the notability guidelines a subject must be written about in-depth by multiple reliable, secondary and independent sources. S0091 (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles from Moss Avis are based on interviews with the owner and editor of Circus Bazaar Magazine Shane Alexande Caldwell, the American Artist R.A. the Rugged Man and Julie Fillion, an SPFX artist associated with the project. They are describing two music video projects the magazine officially produced in during the covid pandemic. These were for the American artists R.A. the Rugged Man, Wu-Tang Clan and Kool G Rap.

Quote

After studying art history for five years in Tromsø, she came into contact with Shane Alexander Caldwell. He runs the Circus Bazaar Company, and in the middle of the corona pandemic, he got the American star rapper RA The Rugged Man to Moss to record a music video for the song Hate Speech .

----

Julie was given the main responsibility for the costumes and make-up. A big task for a new graduate, but Shane can't praise her enough.

- The end result was very good. It was a big project for my small company. We hadn't done so many film assignments before, but it helps when you have such good people as Julie on the team, he says.

----

- It was a lot of work, and it was also in the middle of the corona era. It was intense, and incredibly educational. What I appreciate is that I was given such free rein. Shane lets me use my own style and use the art background I have and I get to express myself creatively, adds Julie.

Shane has since also worked with the legendary hip hop group Wu-Tang Clan in New York. Julie Filion was also involved then. The former hopes that he will be able to film more in Moss in the future.

Feel free to find R.A. the Rugged Man: Dragon Fire, distributed by Nature Sounds Records on youtube where Circus Bazaar Magazine is the Major production credit on the first shot of the film.

Thank you Monsieur Loya (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Monsieur Loya please take the time to read through all the links that have been provided in this discussion. Interviews with those affiliated with the publication are not independent or secondary. Also, notability is not inherited. I will not comment further because doing so invites unhelpful walls of text. What is needed is WP:THREE which has yet to be provided. For the closer of this discussion, this is delete from me. S0091 (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I subscribe to the magazine, is this really not relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4647:5204:0:C86E:F762:6326:30BC (talk) 12:35, 28 February 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 YesCymru. Consensus is Jobbins is insufficiently notable, but there's no reason not to merge Star Mississippi 15:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC) ETA per request at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#AfD_Sion_Jobbins, the reason I closed this as merge is that there appeared to be a desire for the information to live in the target, however some of the relevant info is there. Should this ultimately be a redirect without more info added, that would also be fine as merge quantity is within editorial discretion. Star Mississippi 16:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sion Jobbins[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:NPROF, writings are not significant enough for WP:AUTHOR, so the most notable thing about this local government politician is that he recently co-founded a campaign for Welsh Independence (but no longer leads it). I attempted to initiate a discussion on the talk page but the notability banner was unilaterally removed. The page subject does get some media mentions as the Yes Cymru founder, such as a recent article in Welsh Language weekly magazine, Golwg. However, I don't believe any sources that have come to light at this stage in my WP:BEFORE or on the article amount to significant coverage. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or charitably redirect to Yes Cymru. I'm struggling to find any significant news coverage about Jobbins, apart from the announcements of his resignation from "Yes Cymru".Other articles are Jobbins writing, or commenting on "Yes Cymru" or Welsh independence - which enhance the notability of "Yes Cymru" and Welsh independence, but not Jobbins. I can't find significant numbers (or any) reviews of his books, so these don't seem likely to carry him over the WP:AUTHOR threshold either. Sionk (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge:For me fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF, either should be deleted or merged to the Yes Cymru article instead of a standalone article. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 23:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is sufficient notability here as a political figure. You don't need to be an elected politician to be notable in a political movement. It is also not necessarily whether he is as well written about since resigning. Titus Gold (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The basics of meeting WP:GNG is that he should be 'well written about'. Sionk (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's fair enough. Titus Gold (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no significant coverage. Redirection to YesCymru would be acceptable. Bishonen | tålk 09:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per above and no significant coverage of the individual himself, not sure what a redirect would serve as there is unlikely to be a lot of due weighted content suitable for a merge? I only see a sentence on YesCymru's founding and Jobbins stepping down to be merged somewhat, as that directly relates to YesCymru. DankJae 20:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - activists can be notable with WP:SIGCOV, as shown here. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Bearian. I agree that, indeed, anyone who meets WP:SIGCOV will be notable. I don't think it is demonstrated here that the subject is shown to meet it. There are 17 references on the page, but only 5 are actually about him, many of the others not even mentioning him, or being press releases about YesCymru. 5 sounds like a lot, but it is not, because two (refs 1 and 3) are just a link to his staff profile page. Two others merely announce his standing down as YesCymru leader. There is, in fact, only one reference that purports to discuss him as a subject, and that is a Welsh language weekly magazine/paper (it is half way between those. Not sure what the right word is), anyway, Golwg has this short article [2], but even that is not really about him, it is about St David's Day parades. This is a long way from establishing "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete and redirect to YesCymru for now. The many sources are enough to reference the article but I did not find 2 of them to clearly establish WP:GNG. A redirect (with inbound links kept intact) would allow the article to be recreated later if/when the subject becomes notable. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:59, 2 March 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 Assassin's Creed characters. Legoktm (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eivor Varinsdottir[edit]

Eivor Varinsdottir (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)

Virtually the entire article is plot, so WP:NOTPLOT would apply. There are a couple of short articles in the development section, but only one is really about the character, the other is about the actors cast to play the character. Fails GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge The PCGamer article is the only one with real WP:SIGCOV of this character. This MAY be sigcov, but I'm a bit doubtful it amounts to actual commentary of the character as opposed to the game itself. Otherwise, there is a great deal of trivial coverage and plot summary that violates WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect per Zxcvbnm. There is some coverage here. Not enough to support an article, but a merge would preserve what we have, and allow potential expansion later. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters per Zxcvbnm. The coverage just isn't in-depth for this character to warrant its own article. Merging would preserve the salvageable material. The Night Watch (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - most AC protagonists have gotten their own pages, including one-offs like Edward and Bayek. Players have arguably spent more time with Eivor than all the other protagonists. I see no reason to dismiss her.Valkyrie Red (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments hold no weight, since each person is evaluated independently. The other protagonists may not be notable either, since anyone can make an article about a video game character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters per the reasons provided by the other editors. There is likely potential somewhere down the track, but we are not quite there yet in terms of extant sourcing. An article for the protagonist of Assassin's Creed III was also recently demerged by the same editor who created Eivor, after I merged it due to unsatisfactory sourcing, though I'm surprised that no one has quibbled about it yet.

Haleth (talk) 16:55, 1 March 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. Nomination withdrawn by filer. Legoktm (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bensimon Byrne[edit]

Bensimon Byrne (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)

Fundamentally WP:PROMOTIONAL article MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have particularly strong feelings on this article, but I created it due to the political importance and leanings of this firm, as it was the main PR company responsible for getting the current Canadian federal government elected in 2015. I believe that the firm has been discussed sufficiently in notable Canadian print media (i.e. the Globe and Mail) to warrant an article on Wikipedia. I sourced all of the content on the article page from print media, and none of it has been altered in any way to make it promotional.

ScienceMan123 (talk) 19:53, 27 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 04:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Santa's Apprentice characters[edit]

List of Santa's Apprentice characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NLIST. A fully unsourced article that i can't seem to find notability for elsewhere. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The parent page is about a incredibly minor, two-film series, and not some long-standing franchise. I don't believe there is policy or guidelines on list of character articles (outside of WP:NLIST), but these articles would most certainly fail it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of minor fictional character biographies. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete series is barely even notable itself, plus it’s based on a bunch of generic tropes like Santa, Mrs. Claus his reindeer, Christmas elves etc. so the list of completely original characters is slim. Dronebogus (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not confident about any other option. Shankargb (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Non notable list. Alex-h (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:NLIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unreferenced and unlikely to be done. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 1 March 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. Joyous! | Talk 05:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Po (Kung Fu Panda)[edit]

Po (Kung Fu Panda) (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 doesn't seems to be notable. I can't find sources to prove the character's notability nor do the sources listed provide any in depth or significant coverage. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Kung Fu Panda characters. Basically fancruft as it stands now. No prejudice towards recreation if actual reliable sources are found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Article itself is notable as a (popular) animation's protagonist. More sources can be provided in draftspace. Redirect+Merge can also be possible. Timothytyy (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 1, 2, 3 academic sources. There are more... and for the life of me I have no idea why. Yet, there they are, and contain a diverse set of views of Po (and the other KFP characters) to write decent encyclopedia articles. Thus, it's an editing issue, and I appreciate that no one has seriously suggested the article be deleted, which would clearly be inappropriate regardless of the current state of the article. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily passes GNG. Wish people did basic BEFORE.★Trekker (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is WP:ITSNOTABLE without actual proof of such, maybe try adding the sources to the article instead of making statements like "it's OBVIOUSLY notable" without evidence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If someone else (like me) posted sources before the comment, it would be AGFing to assume that the comment is referencing the other sources previously posted. Jclemens (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Jclemens has provided academic papers that studied Kung Fu Panda which also covers the character Po. While I can't access #2 and #3 papers, I believe they also study about Po, thus has WP:GNG — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Number 2 I was able to reach with no login, but it may be region-restricted. Number 3 I have access to through a university library. Let me know if you need any quotes or anything. There are plenty of less-good references in the academic literature; these looked solid and diverse from each other. Again, I have no idea why anyone thinks KFP is a great topic of academic investigation, but a lot of authors from Indian universities seem to think it is. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The Cloudfront URL gives me Access Denied error, but the DOI works. I believe you've verified #3 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jclemens passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - protagonist of beloved and popular children's media. Basic fail. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 1 March 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. Joyous! | Talk 05:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Taylor[edit]

Daisy Taylor (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:BASIC and WP:ENT. Please note that many of the cited sources are NSFW.

• Refs 1 (Apple Podcasts) and 4 (Podchaser) are podcast interviews.
• Ref 2 (XXXbios) is a fan page on a sketchy website.
• Ref 3 (Grooby) is a pornography website.
• Refs 5 and 7 (IAFD) are database entries.
• Refs 6 (AVN) and 9 (TEA) are award rosters. The awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated.
• Ref 8 (AVN) is an article in the pornography trade press recapping an award ceremony. This is the only cited source that might count towards the GNG.

The article on the Spanish Wikipedia doesn't include any better references. A WP:BEFORE search turned up press releases and mentions of other people with the same name. Cheers, gnu57 20:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, and California. gnu57 20:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 22 February 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. Legoktm (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agbiz[edit]

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

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

Was WP:BLARred and redirect to Ağbiz by Shhhnotsoloud with the rationale: "no mention of 'Agbiz' at Agribusiness". Per the 2021 RfC on BLARring, I have procedurally nominated this for deletion to have consensus on the page as the person who reverted edit making it a redirect. TartarTorte 20:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 20:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep dab - plausible search target for someone seeking to arrive at Agribusiness. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 20:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. There's no need for a disambiguation page here. Either "Agbiz" is legitimately mentioned in Agribusiness, in which case Agbiz redirects there with a hatnote to Ağbiz; or it isn't, in which case it redirects Ağbiz. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't agree with that logic: if it is legitmately mentioned in Agribusiness then we decide which of the two is the primary topic or neither, so there are 3 possible outcomes: redirect to Agribusiness, redirect to the village, have a dab page.

  But there seems no mention in that article, and Googling suggests that the main use for the term is Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa, not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia. PamD 08:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with the nominator that this dab is appropriate: "AgBiz" is attested as meaning "agribusiness" (not just in South African contexts [3] [4]), but this use is obscure, so not worth mentioning in the target article. The other topic, Ağbiz, is equally obscure, so there's no primary topic between the two. – Uanfala (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But Wikipedia does not usually provide a redirect or dab page entry unless the term is mentioned in the target page. PamD 17:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There's some language to that extent in MOS:DABABBR, much of which, by the way, is in awful need of changing, but nothing of the sort in MOS:DABSYN. But I hope we're able to move beyond the simplified and sometimes imperfect heuristics in MOS:DAB and use the underlying logic directly. Fundamentally, what we need before including a topic on a dab page is a) an article with relevant content to point to, and b) some sourcing to demonstrate that the topic in that article can be referred to using the dab term. Articles are expected to have sourced mentions of any major alternative names, and dab pages are generally expected not to have references on them, so in the majority of cases the mention-in-article rule would be a good description of reality. The departure happens for obscure or obvious alternative names ("agbiz" is both), because articles aren't expected to list them. – Uanfala (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Agbiz" as a short form of "Agribusiness" seems like a case of WP:SKYISBLUE to me. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 19:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 13:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 13:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - I was the one who originally asked why someone would use "agbiz" for agribusiness; it would then be "agbis". I would prefer it to redirect to Ağbiz instead. Ⲕրⲁիօրետ (tɒk) 15:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC) Just redirect to agribusiness and put a hatnote for Ağbiz for users who were looking for that. Ⲕրⲁիօրետ (tɒk) 20:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "biz" is a very common short form for "Business", at least in North American English. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as dab page (for a quiet life), or redirect to the village. I'll AGF that it's a plausible term for Agribusiness, though it's interesting to note that Merriam-Webster includes "Agribiz" but does not mention "Agbiz". We don't include redirects, or dab page entries, for every unsourced abbreviation for a topic: if someone would like to add "... commonly abbreviated as agribiz or agbiz ...", with sources for both, to Agribusiness, then all would be well. PamD 11:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can't see the harm of a dab like this, with 3 entires. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Please use Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 18:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animorphs books[edit]

Category:Animorphs books (edit | [[Talk:Category:Animorphs books|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 propose mass deletion of unsourced books that are not notable by itself, only as part of the series that already has an article. Standard article looks like this one In the Time of Dinosaurs - no sources, no notability, just plot summary. Artem.G (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 18:13, 22 February 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 The Magic School Bus. No consensus for a standalone article, but viable ATD Star Mississippi 15:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Magic School Bus characters[edit]

List of The Magic School Bus characters (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)

sourced mostly with primary sources that don't show general notability Artem.G (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is almost entirely original research. It could probably be notable if rewritten completely, due to Magic School Bus's huge cultural impact, but per WP:TNT, it should be "blown up and started over" with actual sources being cited. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Artem.G, per the relevant guideline, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Your nomination, by contrast, focuses on only the state of the article. Given that the AfD guidelines provide a checklist of steps to carry out before nominating an article, what steps did you take to assess the notability of this particular topic before nominating the article for deletion? Moreover, given that you proposed deleting seven articles (1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7) with nearly identical rationales within the span of just 10 minutes (one of which has already been closed as a speedy keep), what pre-nomination steps could you have even taken in that time? --Usernameunique (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all articles/lists nominated by Artem.G. Very clear they're just spam AFDing without any consideration or doing any BEFORE because they find the pages poor and not based on GNG.★Trekker (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason. There was a message on afd talk page about these articles, and after googling for sources I've nominated them for deletion. If you want to improve article or find sources for GNG, great! If no, assume good faith. But yeah, I probably wouldn't participate in afd after that, feels like the worst place on the whole English wikipedia. Artem.G (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: On the contrary I think you are the WP:BITE one in this situation. Not only did this user say they would never come back to AfD because of your statement, but it also does not WP:AGF, a tenet of Wikipedia. It's fairly clear that these character articles are WP:ALLPLOT material that would need a full rewrite, so nominating a bunch of them in short succession is not even wrong. The guideline you are citing applies to the series itself, not a bunch of plotcruft written about the characters. Arguably we need more people patrolling articles that are totally unencyclopedic and unfit for Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mot agreeing or disagreeing with this view as I haven't done my due diligence on it, but this would be an issue to raise at ANI and not here at AfD. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 18:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The actual verifiable information regarding the casting of the principal characters is already present on the respective articles of the two animated series. Almost the entirely of the article is not supported by reliable, secondary sources, creating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH concerns. There are no sources that I can find that would actually support that this list passes WP:LISTN or that a spinout article for the franchise is needed. What sources I can actually find that could potentially be considered from reliable sources that discuss any of the characters of the franchise are largely focused just on Miss Frizzle, specifically, and even then would probably not be considered significant coverage. The nomination very clearly states that it was being nominated due to sourcing and notability concerns, and the only Keep arguments are being founded entirely on arguments agains the nominator, and don't actually address those concerns, which appear to be completely valid in this case. Rorshacma (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Magic School Bus - Fails WP:LISTN as no independent, reliable sources discuss this group with significant coverage based on my searches. Any content with independent sourcing can be selectively merged into a new section titled "Characters". - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 18:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect we are WP:NOTTVTROPES Dronebogus (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Magic School Bus fails WP:LISTN no RS discuss this group with SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  10:39, 1 March 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. Salvio ^giuliano 22:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Horrid Henry characters[edit]

List of Horrid Henry characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

completely unsourced, and even if the show is notable list of characters is not Artem.G (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, Lists, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I recently removed a couple of dubious characters who do not appear to be part of the universe. Although they have different criteria, even the corresponding page on Horrid Henry's own wiki is up for deletion. Certes (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not relevant since it was just one guy who said he preferred categories to list, and it was ignored for over six months now. I just removed it. Dream Focus 06:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the topic of "List of (show) characters" is "(show)". If not for LENGTH anything verifiable can be merged to a notable topic; this is just a summary style split. Anything that reflects too much plot summary or OR can be trimmed, and that means a deletion is unnecessary. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The show had 250 episodes. If the character list won't fit on the main page for it, a side article is normally what's done. Dream Focus 06:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there are 250 episodes of the show, almost no sources show notability of its characters. All the links I've found are either primary sources or user-generated wikis, so can't be used. See [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Artem.G (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Artem.G, per the relevant guideline, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Your nomination, by contrast, focuses on only the state of the article. Given that the AfD guidelines provide a checklist of steps to carry out before nominating an article, what steps did you take to assess the notability of this particular topic before nominating the article for deletion? Moreover, given that you proposed deleting seven articles (1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7) with nearly identical rationales within the span of just 10 minutes (one of which has already been closed as a speedy keep), what pre-nomination steps could you have even taken in that time? --Usernameunique (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this can be salvageble. A single source for a trivial information point, bloat of infoboxes and entries like List of Horrid Henry characters#Dopey D… or List of Horrid Henry characters#Mouldy Myra. When the parent article (Horrid Henry) has barely any information on the books themselves, a list of characters is a red flag for me. A list of a main characters should be added at the parent article without WP:OR, but this should be deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:ALLPLOT, an unsalvageable article that requires a total rewrite. See also WP:OR. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mega-fancruft. This is long enough to need an alphabetical directory like a glossary. Maybe a huge, sprawling, massively influential franchise like Star Trek or Middle Earth needs that, but Horrid Henry?! Dronebogus (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The only verifiable information here that would be worth preserving is the cast information for the primary characters, and that is already included on the Horrid Henry (TV series)#Characters and cast and Horrid Henry: The Movie#Cast. The vast majority of the information beyond that is, aside from being unsourced, on completely minor characters that have utterly no notability and barely appeared in any of the books or other media. The essential information on the main cast is already present on several other related pages, and a separate, spinout article is not needed beyond that. Rorshacma (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:LISTN, stand alone lists are notable when reliable sources discuss them as a group or set. I can't find such coverage in reliable sources and so I can't see it as notable. At most this should be extensively trimmed and merged to the main Horrid Henry page. Cakelot1 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for failing LISTN. The Keep votes aren't advancing a policy based reason for keeping either - the parent article is a mere 13K in size, so a "size split" makes zero sense, and, if by some miracle sources were found, the character list would need a massive trimming of this exhaustive list of minor characters. The best one could possibly hope for is a merge, and again, that's dependent on finding sourcing... Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for failing LISTN, no evidence this has been discussed as a group or set.  // Timothy :: talk  10:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The keep arguments seem to assume that any TV show's article should have an absolutely exhaustive list of characters, regardless of prominence/sourcing. That's not actually the case. In some cases, there is coverage of many of the specific characters such that we can create a list of characters which meets WP:NLIST and/or could be considered WP:DUE in the main article, but should be spun out for size reasons. But there's nothing to retain here -- it's entirely WP:OR and/or based on the show itself, which doesn't carry any WP:WEIGHT for anything but the most basic facts about it and the plot. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:10, 1 March 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 Dinosaur Train. Star Mississippi 15:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dinosaur Train characters[edit]

List of Dinosaur Train characters (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)

sourced only with primary sources that don't show notability Artem.G (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Artem.G, per the relevant guideline, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Your nomination, by contrast, focuses on only the state of the article. Given that the AfD guidelines provide a checklist of steps to carry out before nominating an article, what steps did you take to assess the notability of this particular topic before nominating the article for deletion? Moreover, given that you proposed deleting seven articles (1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7) with nearly identical rationales within the span of just 10 minutes (one of which has already been closed as a speedy keep), what pre-nomination steps could you have even taken in that time? --Usernameunique (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the information we need is on the parent article, not this massive article based entirely on primary sources. Dronebogus (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dinosaur Train - Fails WP:LISTN as no independent, reliable sources discuss this group with significant coverage.  // Timothy :: talk  10:54, 1 March 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 Franklin (TV series) or a subsection therein. Adjusting the redirect, if necessary, is a matter of editorial discretion. Star Mississippi 15:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Franklin characters[edit]

List of Franklin characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

completely unsourced, and even if the show is notable list of characters is not Artem.G (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, Lists, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely unsourced, bloated list. Franklin (TV series) already has a list of main, reocurring and minor characters, so having a list for every character who appeared in one episode is completely unneeded. MaterialWorks _(talk) 00:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Artem.G, per the relevant guideline, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Your nomination, by contrast, focuses on only the state of the article. Given that the AfD guidelines provide a checklist of steps to carry out before nominating an article, what steps did you take to assess the notability of this particular topic before nominating the article for deletion? Moreover, given that you proposed deleting seven articles (1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7) with nearly identical rationales within the span of just 10 minutes (one of which has already been closed as a speedy keep), what pre-nomination steps could you have even taken in that time? --Usernameunique (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As mentioned by MaterialWorks, Franklin (TV series)#Characters and neighbourhood already includes a section for the main characters, which it appears that this overly long list was originally excised from. Outside of those main characters, the remainder of the characters listed here are all very minor, with many only appearing in a single episode of the TV series. There is no sourced content and nothing worth merging back to any of the other articles on the franchise. Rorshacma (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Previous users have mentioned that while the show may be notable, this list isn't notable enough to be a stand-alone article, especially since a list of main characters is already included in Franklin (TV series)#Characters and neighbourhood This list also includes no proper sourcing or citations. Pommer4 — Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contributor participated as part of a class project. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Franklin (TV series)#Characters and neighbourhood. Fails LISTN, no SIGCOV from RS.  // Timothy :: talk  11:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no strong enough reason for a separate article for the characters. I'm not opposed to a redirect. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:40, 2 March 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. There seems to be some agreement that this is a borderline case with regards to GNG, but a consensus to delete clearly isn't forming. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Jacobs (entrepreneur)[edit]

Brad Jacobs (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Bringing this here for discussion as this article has a long history of draft space moves, socking and COI editing. The most recent have disclosed and are absolutely acting in good faith, and I don't have an issue with @Mattdaviesfsic:'s AfC acceptance as it absolutely meets the "maybe" barrier needed for AfC. While his companies have been deemed notable (or potentially merge worthy) at recent AfDs, it does not appear to me that Jacobs is notable as a businessperson. Much of the coverage is interviews, or about his companies rather than him as a person, and I cannot find evidence he's notable outside of his work with them. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 17:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the references are pay-walled. The first Forbes piece is a contributor, so non-RS. The one from 1996 seems ok. On the whole, I think it's at GNG. Not a slam dunk, but we have references in enough RS to get it past the bar. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi all, In working on this draft we went through the AfC process, and we appreciate you calling out that we are working in good faith.  I am sure I am not supposed to vote with my COI, but I thought I could provide some additional information that might help. In the AfC process, we took out some information as possibly being promotional, but maybe it would help. This information covered that he is on the Forbes Billionaire list with additional reported information about him: https://www.forbes.com/profile/brad-jacobs/?sh=49deef5820bb. He was ranked #10 on Barron's top CEO list, was named a Top CEO by Glassdoor in France and the UK. Also there are other articles where he is mentioned as well such as the CT Insiders Billionaires list: https://www.ctinsider.com/news/article/forbes-richest-2022-ct-17473008.php#:~:text=He%20also%20built%20the%20company,married%20and%20has%20four%20kids.  Do you think we should add that information back to the article? Please let me know what you think and if I can provide any additional information. Freightguy1975 (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Freightguy1975. You're absolutely welcome to vote as long as you disclose, which you have done. I leave the question as to whether that information should be added back to others to weigh in as they advised your (former) colleagues to do so and don't want to mislead. Star Mississippi 23:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page was submitted through the AfC process and approved. See above Comment. Thank you @Star Mississippi. Freightguy1975 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I note that passing AFC does not necessarily mean that an article is notable, that would resemble using WP as a source. I also would like to as Freightguy1975 who they mean when in their comment they talk about "we". Given the low participation here, a relist seems warranted to get more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question Randykitty. We was just my way of saying that myself and other editors worked on the draft to get it approved in the AfC process- I didn't realize that would raise any concern. Do you have any thoughts on adding the additional sourcing materials I listed above to the article? Freightguy1975 (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:GNG Justwatchmee (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  can you please let us know how you came to be aware of this discussion? THank you. Star Mississippi 00:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Weird question, but sure. I was in AfD Debates (biography) Projects and saw it there. See history. Justwatchmee (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for clarifying. Strange to see an account suddenly come active after four years, which is why I was curious. Star Mississippi 00:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: a lot of the sources present in the article fail to qualify for attesting notoriety as per WP:GNG, but they're still useful for referencing content. The central issues is whether there are at least 2 references that quality for establishing notoriety, and I think there are: TIME and WSJ. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:32, 2 March 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 The Country Mouse and the City Mouse Adventures. Star Mississippi 15:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Country Mouse and the City Mouse Adventures characters[edit]

List of The Country Mouse and the City Mouse Adventures characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

completely unsourced, and even if the show is notable list of characters is not Artem.G (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The main The Country Mouse and the City Mouse Adventures already includes a section on the three main characters, and the remainder of this bloated list is extremely minor characters, nearly all of which are stated to have only appeared in a single episode. As there are no actual sources to move over to the main page, there is nothing to Merge. Rorshacma (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Every character description is unsourced and the notable characters are already included on the main page of the show. I don't think it makes sense to mention the minor characters in the main article because they are not recurring at all and only show up in one episode. Additionally, there is already a well developed page of episode breakdowns that mentions each minor character that is relevant to that episode. Tinyhabit (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Contributor participated as part of a class project. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Artem.G, per the relevant guideline, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Your nomination, by contrast, focuses on only the state of the article. Given that the AfD guidelines provide a checklist of steps to carry out before nominating an article, what steps did you take to assess the notability of this particular topic before nominating the article for deletion? Moreover, given that you proposed deleting seven articles (1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7) with nearly identical rationales within the span of just 10 minutes (one of which has already been closed as a speedy keep), what pre-nomination steps could you have even taken in that time? --Usernameunique (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The was a message on afd talk page about these list of characters. I googled all of them, and finding no coverage I nominated these article for deletion where other people could agree, disagree, and decide what to do. The span of 10 minutes is funny - could I google them all before nominating? Nah, too complex, nobody will do it. Artem.G (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm usually on the side of lists like this, but this seems solely plot and trivia driven. Gonnym (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Country Mouse and the City Mouse Adventures - Fails WP:LISTN as no independent, reliable sources discuss this group with significant coverage.  // Timothy :: talk  11:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (and I'm not opposed to a redirect) because the list has no need to stay in an article of its own, that is, I see no undue weight to its contents if it's inside the main article. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

House of Vsevolod Meyerhold[edit]

House of Vsevolod Meyerhold (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 museum doesn't seem to be notable, all sources just say that it exists. Artem.G (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the building is listed as of 'federal significance' (the highest level) on the Russian cultural heritage register, the equivalent to a Grade I Listed building, or on the National Register of Historic Places - [10], [11]. The sources state it has the first memorial to Vsevolod Meyerhold. The museum and its people have been covered by TASS ([12], [13]), and local news outlets [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Spokoyni (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Links 1-2 are ok, 3-4 just mention that the museum exists, 5 is that 'museum will join some association', 6 is just ridiculous 'several neighborhoods are blackouted'. I didn't check links after this one. So, as I said before, most sources just acknowledge the existence of that museum, with nothing said about its history or exposition. Artem.G (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I pasted the wrong link, 6 should be [20]. ""Meyerhold's House" for me is a holy place, an island of freedom. Many great directors, like Valery Fokin, came here and “cleansed” their souls near the monument to the master, and we serve here." If we have multiple WP:RSs mentioning this museum, what are you looking for to show 'notability'? Spokoyni (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your recent expansion of the article, looks good! Now I agree that we should keep this article. And to answer your question, mentioning something doesn't make it notable if there is nothing there about the subject. Artem.G (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'll add that "doesn't seem to be notable" and "sources just say that it exists" are Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - WP:JUSTNOTABLE, Wikipedia:ASSERTN, etc. Has WP:BEFORE been done? Why were these other sources missed? Spokoyni (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep searching for the Russian name brings up plenty of news and book sources (most of which I can’t read) but there’s enough there to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most Russian sources just state that the museum exists and you can visit it. Nothing I've seen says why is it notable. Artem.G (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Artem.G, per the relevant guideline, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Your nomination, by contrast, focuses on only the state of the article. Given that the AfD guidelines provide a checklist of steps to carry out before nominating an article, what steps did you take to assess the notability of this particular topic before nominating the article for deletion? Moreover, given that you proposed deleting seven articles (1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7) with nearly identical rationales within the span of just 10 minutes (one of which has already been closed as a speedy keep), what pre-nomination steps could you have even taken in that time? --Usernameunique (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, also a listed building.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. Heritage-listed building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 23 February 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. Largely based on HighKing's source analysis. Legoktm (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wistiki[edit]

Wistiki (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 meeting CORP. I can only find PR type pieces about the product launch or blog discussions. The company went into bankruptcy proceedings early during the pandemic, I'm not sure they've recovered either. I don't see any RS in French either. Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Springnuts (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:ORGIN and WP:SIRS. Here are links from significant, reliable sources; 1 2 3.Malaysian Burger (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria is applied. or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article not those mentioned by Malaysian Burger above meet the criteria. For example, the Masculin source is a simple summary of the founding story (which can be read in multiple difference sources, always the same, and on their website) and a description of the product. There is no "Independent Content" about the company. The Le Parisien source is based entirely on an interview with the founders and is a "puff piece" with no "Independent Content". And the Objetconnecte source is a summary of their latest crowdfunding with no "Independent Content" and I consider it to be another puff profile gushing effusively with praise and admiration. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:00, 27 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 05:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Left Group[edit]

Left Group (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 failed to detect any significant independ coverage and thus fails WP:GROUP.--C messier (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Searched for Αριστερή Συσπείρωση and found nothing. Greek wikipedia[21] has an article, but the sources are all from the organization.  // Timothy :: talk  11:51, 1 March 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. to allow creator time to work on this, but consensus is clear that it does not belong in mainspace at the moment. Star Mississippi 15:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries and inhabited areas[edit]

List of countries and inhabited areas (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)

In brief, this article is irretrievably OR.

The list claims to include "all entities with any amount of de facto autonomy and a permanent population", but it does not come close to actually doing so. If it did so, it would be so extraordinarily large as to be actively unhelpful (List of human beings, anyone?)

The article lists political entities based on a scattergun approach, using a number of criteria with no obvious connection between them. The criteria themselves are poorly-defined and not based on reliable sources. The list is internally inconsistent, treating parallel entities differently for apparently arbitrary reasons (e.g. listing some exclaves but not others, listing some autonomous parts of countries but not others). The fact that the list has ended up being called "countries and inhabited areas" - which could include just about anything - demonstrates this.

The only way of making the list consistent with policy would be to trim it down to a point where it is a content fork of an existing list like List of sovereign states and List of dependent territories. Since this is not a plausible redirect, deletion is appropriate in this circumstance. Kahastok talk 16:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I did not see this message, from the editor who created the article, until after I nominated the article for deletion. While I maintain that the article should be deleted, I think it's fair to assume that they won't be able to defend it during the current period. Happy to see this delayed if others think it appropriate as I would not want to seem to take any advantage of the earthquake. Kahastok talk 16:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsure - at first glance it does look like WP:OR and WP:SYNTH but I'm wondering if it is actually capable of being cleaned-up; it appears that the categories of entities on the page are all (or almost all) lists that already exist on en.wiki, so to some extent this is - or could be - an outline of other WP lists. I'm not sure that SYNTH or OR applies if the content being synth-ed already exists on WP. JMWt (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The title does not reflect the content. The meat of the introductory sentences say it is a list of "countries and inhabited areas of the world by type or degree of self-governance. It incorporates all entities with any amount of de facto autonomy and a permanent population." The original title (which is still a redirect) was List of de facto autonomous states and areas which is at least more accurate than the current title. The first thing is all the sovereign states are included, well they are already at List of sovereign states and they are auto defacto and dejure so why are they in this list at all? I have an interest in Palestine so let's look at the treatment of that:

1) Firstly, it speaks about the UN system and notes that there are two UN observer states but then says "1 UN non-member observer state having both de facto and de jure sovereignty: Vatican City (administered by the Holy See). While the State of Palestine is a recognised de jure sovereign state (it is also a UN non-member observer state), it is not listed in this category for lack of de facto sovereignty."

"De jure sovereign state" is nonsense, a sovereign state is auto de jure and de facto and why would you want to exclude a sovereign state to begin with?

2) OK, so where is Palestine in the list? It is between 142 and 143 and described as a dependent territory of Israel, which is just OR rubbish.

3) Palestine is made up of two areas, Gaza and the West Bank and there is an entry for Gaza at 67 describing it as a de facto proto-state in Palestine.

What shall we make of that? A part of the State of Palestine which is described as a dependent territory of Israel is a de facto proto state. Eh? OR again.

I haven't troubled to look at any other edge cases besides Palestine, I fear what I might find. Any reader will be far better served by going directly to any of the constituent lists that properly describe the entries.

As to the unavailability of the List creator, I don't mind to wait a while for their return along with an argument for why this list should stay. Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The items in the main list are incredibly inconsistent by including different types of territories, non-contiguous regions, and autonomous regions, and so-called proto-states. I see no benefit to combining these whatsoever and pages like List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent should be adequate. Reywas92^Talk 21:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete extremely weird and useless duplicate of List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent. Seems to be a recent stealth vanity page by a user who makes a lot of weird and useless vanity content. Dronebogus (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Comment guys have you read that I'm in the earthquake zone, I'm working with an international team with the UN here. I barely sleep and eat and we're working here really hard to save as many lives as possible. Please don't take advantage of it. And also please understand that the article is still a draft, read this I never had time to finish it. Just because something isn't finished doesn't mean it's OR or synth. Please don't make personal accusations Mr. Dronebogus about someone whom you've never interacted. I never have or had any CoI. I can barely keep my eyes open, to even write down the reasons of why I say Keep. Only when I get out of the zone. Good night guys and please be safe --Universal Life (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps give us a sourced one-sentence description of what the list is supposed to be, and how it is different from the other lists that we already have?

Bear in mind that the description in the article is clearly not correct. Even if we restrict ourselves to political divisions, "all entities with any amount of de facto autonomy and a permanent population" is far wider than the included entities section. There are over 35000 missing entries in France alone, in that French communes are political divisions, with an amount of de facto autonomy, normally with permanent populations.

Nobody argues that the list is OR because it "isn't finished". I contend that it is OR because it mixes together a number of different definitions to produce something that has not been published before anywhere else. And, insofar as the definitions are not OR, they are already covered by existing lists.

As I've said, I've no objection to this being postponed or held open a while longer than normal while you are unavailable - though note that this is not about you, it's about the article, and if others feel it has merit they will doubtless chime in. Kahastok talk 10:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also indicated above that I had no objection to waiting. You evidently did not read either comment before accusing editors of trying to "take advantage". As for "I never had time to finish it", that doesn't stack up, I suggested draftification previously at the time that the article was tagged as under construction and now the article is in mainspace, untagged. I don't think the article is salvageable so I still think deletion is the best route but a minimum solution would be draftification with a view to release when it is actually finished.Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I absolutely respect what you are doing in the earthquake zone, but there is Wikipedia:No deadline and you don’t need to publish a half-baked draft, especially a redundant and confusing one that will be viewed by a lot of people because of its broad topic matter. Dronebogus (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give article creator more time to chime in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, for the reasons given above. I have no objection to it being WP:USERFIED draftified to Universal Life's sandbox. Springnuts (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. These apples should not be listed with those oranges. There's no logical reason to mash them together. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft delete, but only kinda. The list (at least how I see it) should become a list of (for lack of a better term) places such as nations that have the highest jurisdiction/power of its own area, regardless to the Montevideo Convention or any other requirements. I think this should definitely should a list we have on Wikipedia. The page as it is now is only kinda that in a very slopy way. Best case scenario we rewrite the page (I'm happy to help!), but the page as it is now is delete worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007Gtbot (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I read "nations that have the highest jurisdiction/power of its own area", I see a meaningless statement. Insofar as I can get any meaning from it at all, I see a proposal for a WP:POVFORK of List of sovereign states, that elevates rebel groups to the level of sovereign states.

OTOH, when I look at this editor's six total edits to Wikipedia, four of them involve putting the WP:FRINGE view that micronations are sovereign states (two on Liberland [22][23], two on Sealand [24] [25]) and one of the others is the edit above. So maybe "nations that have the highest jurisdiction/power of its own area" is intended to create a WP:POVFORK of List of sovereign states that elevates micronations to the level of sovereign states? Also possible. It might also be both. Point being that the definition is so vague as not to be useful for creating articles, and it could be used to create articles that are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Kahastok talk 18:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't think of anyway the inclusion criteria for the list can changed so its notable and not be redundant. // Timothy :: talk  11:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Relist: Hi guys, I've literally arrived home less than an hour ago. For those who doesn't know, I was in the earthquake area. I've been in Hatay and Maraş for more two weeks, close to 3 almost, volunteering with many international teams for rescue and relief. With the help of my schoolmates, I've provided tents, sleeping bags, blankets etc. to more than 800 internally displaced persons in Hatay, among many other relief activities. I'm still trying to send as much help as I can. Most days I haven't slept more than 3-4 hours. And I can't even speak about the horrors I've seen there, worse than any postapocalyptic film you can see. I couldn't bring my laptop due to the conditions there (and the legit fear of being robbed by gangs). I've come back with fever and throat pain. Please let me rest and catch my breath for a moment. I had first become a WP editor back in 2008, I was a kid, but I grasped the core principles of WP very well back then, and even today I edit the WP with the same core principles spirit. I created this article with the hope of collaboration; I'm a molecular biologist and not a political scientist, so even though I might be knowledgeable, inquirer and passionate about many subjects; the way I worded the article may be is not the best. I second the words of 2007Gtbot above and I believe this article may be clearer to everybody within a very short time. I welcome all kinds of collaboration :) I remember also mentioning above that the article is still a draft. So, please let me catch my breath, list my reasons for keeping the article properly. And, within a week, the article can be much bettered and properly sourced. Thank you --Universal Life (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, you already voted once. Kahastok talk 18:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it is WP:USERFIED you will have lost nothing and can recreate it when and if the problems with the article have been addressed (however imo the article is unsalvageable, and you will more usefully put your efforts elsewhere). Springnuts (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to Draftspace If original author's reasoning is that the article is not ready, it should go back to Draft until it is ready. I would recommend that the Draft then go through RFC process. As others have mentioned, the list is either redundant, WP:SYNTH or incorrect. My only expertise is in the Myanmar regions, where Wa State is far from the only proto-state not the mention de facto controlled areas. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 19:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you know somthing is missing or wrong, fix it. One man can't be expected to know whats going on worldwide in every situation. If you know what it should say then make it say that. 2007Gtbot (talk) 23:48, 1 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redeemer Christian High School[edit]

Redeemer Christian High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This was accepted through AFC with no independent sourcing, back before WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and needs evaluation now. It still has no independent sources. I've done the usual searches, and I've only come up with a couple of trivial mentions - local high school sports coverage, and snow school closure lists. This should be deleted as it does not meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. This AFD follows a de-PROD of the article. MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Christianity, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: NN school. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no independent sources at all. Bishonen | tålk 21:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Secondary source has been added. EpicEfeathers (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

topprivateschools.ca is user generated content and an indiscriminate directory. It doesn't make the case for notability. We would need multiple sources that meet WP:RS and contain significant coverage. See WP:THREE. - MrOllie (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 08:19, 1 March 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 14:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Saeed Khan[edit]

Muhammad Saeed Khan (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 Islamic scholar, fails to meet WP:NBASIC and WP:GNG, had in headlines from very few media due to former PM's marriage, member of committee of a political party doesn't make him notable too. Can't find anything in RS regarding his scholarly and political services. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Politicians, Religion, Islam, and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Agreed. 'Known for solemnizing a wedding' is not compelling notability material. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep I incline towards the subject being a border-line notable. A detailed article about his ideas related to the establishment of Darul Uloom Deoband have been discussed in Al-Bayyinat (June 2012 issue) in about 14 pages. There should be more about him in my opinion. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC) (Modified per my comments and findings below. ─ The Aafī (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete - per WP:BIO1E. Solemnizing wedding of a notable person doesn't confer notability. Insight 3 (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Insight 3: There is something beyond "solemnizing wedding" that I have mentioned above. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I will change my !vote once you show us some sources regarding subject's significant role other than the marriage. Insight 3 (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Insight 3, I've already added a detailed article that analyses his theory about the establishment of Darul Uloom Deoband. This is a significant, independent and reliable analysis about "his work" and must be counted towards his notability. I am not saying that the subject is "notable enough" due to this but I feel this is a "borderline" and this analytical article makes me believe there should be more details existing about him in Urdu resources when it comes to his works. His critique of Wahiduddin Khan and also of Deobandi movement as listed at his profile here appear things that could possible have gained attention. I am still trying to locate him on WorldCat in order to get more details - but whatever we have in Al-Bayyinat makes this a borderline case for me and definitely something beyond "solemnizing a marriage". Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @TheAafi, His mention in Darul Uloom Deoband's magazine does not make him notable even when we combined it with the rest of the references. You can call it borderline when we have lots of coverage in primary, unreliable, secondary and in reliable sources, collectively we would call it borderline towards notability. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A detailed analysis is different from a "simple mention". Given this detailed analysis of his ideas and views is a good indication about having more resources about him in Urdu - and I didn't say it makes him a clear-cut notable but it is still a borderline case for me. I'm looking for some as there is definitely stuff that is worth finding beyond the mere solemnisation of marriage. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 18:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well this article from BBC Urdu adds more to his involvement in 1995 Pakistani coup d'état attempt. I feel I have two best resources already established (the detailed analytical article in Al-Bayyinat journal of Jamia Uloom-ul-Islamia and the article in BBC Urdu) that discuss his involvement outside the "solemnizing marriage stuff" and I am now inclining to a full keep now. ─ The Aafī (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @TheAafi, Lets have a brief look on the refs now, ref 7 and 8 are reliable but isn't significant to the subject to establish notability. ref 6, 5, 1, and 4 are primary, unreliable, repeating and corelating each other (just for increasing the number of refs only), ref 2 and 3 are passing mentions and don't have any significant impact to the subject. The detailed analytical article in Al-Bayyinat journal (a 17 page journal) wasn't the analysis of Saeed, if you take a look, the author just introduced him and his view of point on first first 5 pages, the rest are the struggle journey of the institute. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't care what is in the article and what is not. Generally notability is established by "significant coverage in multiple, independent and reliable sources" and BBC Urdu article and Al-Bayyinat's at the least five pages according to you - both are significant and "multiple". Though there should be more but we have multiple and reliable sources that discuss his participation in 1995 Operation Khilafa of Pakistan and his point of views of establishment of Deoband. Both of these sources are "independent" and not primary. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  By the way, BBC Urdu is not a passing mention. It has a whole para about the subject and not just a single line. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  BBC 4 lines paragraph is nothing more than discussion about his participation in former PM's marriage ceremony, and passing mentions in reliable sources doesn't count towards notability, anyways more contributions in AfD would help us to develop consensus. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This clearly means you have not read BBC report because it is definitely not about his participation in PM's marriage. It talks about his prime participation in the 1995 Pakistani coup d'état attempt. I've for now added everything that I could and I'm leaving these for community review. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - can't see enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Onel5969: I must ask, if you can been through the Urdu sources that I've included? ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After a delete closure on 6 February, this article was taken to DRV which closed with the outcome of relist to allow for more consideration of Urdu-language sources. I am implementing this consensus but do not have a view on the merits of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Now that this discussion has been relisted, I want to bring into attention the sources that were misinterpreted and not considered earlier, and make my case for the subject meeting WP:NBASIC#1. The nominator is adamant that the cleric has played no role besides solemnizing the marriage of PM Imran Khan. First of all, I'd bring into attention, the detailed descriptive and analytical coverage of the subject published in Bayyinaat, from pages 114 to 119, that's quite significant and meets WP:SIGCOV. This article also refers to some discourses by an Indian academic Waris Mazhari on the subject but unfortunately I've not been able to get hold of that. These discussions are on the subject's views about the establishment of Deoband seminary. Following this, we have the cleric's historical and widely accepted role in 1995 Pakistani coup d'état attempt demonstrated by several reliable resources such as Herald Dawn and BBC Urdu. The former source mentions, In fact, Mufti Saeed, a cleric arrested from Rawalpindi at the time, had not only been a regular at some of the garrison dars sessions but was also encouraged by the then commander of the 10-Corps Lieutenant General Malik and BBC Urdu makes clear discussion that (translation): It is said that Brigadier Mustansarbullah gave some of his papers to a man named Mufti Saeed and instructed them to be burnt and destroyed. Later, the military authorities recovered a copy of the speech from Mufti Saeed, which was to be delivered by Major General Zaheerul Islam Abbasi after taking over the power of the country. Mufti Saeed was the only person with these military officers who was aware of every issue. An article from Telegraph also happens to discuss the subject in few lines subject to his participation in the coup. That said, if everything is put together, this makes a good case for WP:NBASIC#1 in my opinion. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Besides what has been already mentioned, the cleric is found to be in another controversy reported by Indian Express and The Hindu. Both are reliable. In conclusion of above discussion and these news sources, I believe this subject is notable and has significant coverage and should be kept.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 06:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the subject has had significant coverage in Bayyinaat as User:TheAafi has found, and his involvement in the coup, put together, make him notable. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources found by The Aafi and TheChunky indicate significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:07, 27 February 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 National Economic Association. Viable ATD and his only weak claim to notability is with regards to his role here. Should that change in the future, it could be spun back out. Star Mississippi 14:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angelino Viceisza[edit]

Angelino Viceisza (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)

Searches did not turn up enough to meet WP:GNG. He has three publications with borderline citation counts, but he is the co-author on them. With an h-Index of 11, not seeing he currently meets WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I started this article because the subject will become president of the National Economic Association on February 1, 2023. Thus, before the end of the AfD period, the subject will fit criteria #6 of WP:NACADEMIC. Two years ago, I started a similar page for Nina Banks when she assumed the presidency of this same organization, and within a week the New York Times wrote a lengthy profile of her: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/business/black-women-economists-nina-banks.html I believe the same thing will happen with this subject. EAWH (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best if we waited until after that happened, anything can happen between now and then and they might not ascend to the position. As it stands now, not notable. TOOSOON, but for one day, I suppose it can pass. Keep Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to this tweet, the subject is now President of the NEA. --EAWH (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is the sourcing, it's all non-reliable/non-neutral. The NEA website isn't really a neutral source; it would be best if this event was covered in an un-related piece of media. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - not sure that being president of that organization is automatic grounds for notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Publications in Economics journals often order authors alphabetically, and the subject's last name begins with V. Do not try to assess the subject's contributions to his published articles by the fact that his name is listed last.EAWH (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The NEA appears to have a narrower scope and emphasis on advocacy, so would likely not be considered a major academic organization of the type ordained by C6 (e.g. the AEA, which is much broader, publishes a prestigious journal, and has a distinguished fellowship recognized as highly selective). JoelleJay (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To add: NEA has only 2000 members, including undergraduates; this is around 10x fewer than AEA. I don't think it can be called "major". JoelleJay (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. So far, the only person arguing to keep it is the page creator. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 17:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the only person arguing to Keep this papge; Oaktree b also said the page was worth Keeping.--EAWH (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Keep. I agree that the president of the NEA association/group is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is every president of every learned national society of 2000+ members inherently notable (that would be tens of thousands of people...)? What distinction do you make between "minor" and "major" academic societies? JoelleJay (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He meets WP:NACADEMIC #3 ("The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).") for his membership in the National Bureau of Economic Research, which is selective, as per #3. That site says: "NBER affiliates are selected through a rigorous and competitive process that begins with a call for nominations each February." [26] Lamona (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Note, I'm not an economist, but the NBER seems to be a major organization, as per its list of members who won Nobels. Lamona (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yes he does satisfy WP:NACADEMIC #3. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With due respect to users above, but NBER is not nearly as prestigious or "highly selective" as the examples in WP:NACADEMIC #3, so most keep votes appear to be based on a misreading. Even more so as being a research associate of NBER is very far from being an elected member of an academic society. Also low citation count and low h-index, so meets no criteria of WP:NACADEMIC. Jeppiz (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I think it's a bit WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this associate professor, although it looks likely that he will eventually be notable. Citation levels are respectable in what I believe to be a mid-to-high citation field, but I think it's short of WP:NPROF C1. Being a research associate at a think tank like NBER is not a pass of WP:NPROF C3, and I don't think this contributes much to notability. I don't think the NEA is a major academic society in the sense of WP:NPROF C6, although I do think this may contribute some to notability. If the New York Times profiles him, then this would surely change the situation; until they do, WP:CRYSTAL applies. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The redirect proposed by TJMSmith also looks like a reasonable alternative to deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. JoelleJay (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per the discussions above. JoelleJay (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to National Economic Association: per WP:ATD-R. This would allow for the article to be restored and expanded should there be a change in the subject's notability. TJMSmith (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would have no issue with redirecting the article to the organization.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a BLP with zero direct detailing in reliable sources independent of the subject. Every source so far applied and presented is connected in some way. That the last org president was later covered in a NYT article is irrelevant to this subject. NACADEMIC#3 is inapplicable because there are no independent sources presented which make this claim. I'm okay with redirecting as suggested by TJMSmith. BusterD (talk) 04:44, 25 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 05:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Smothers Jr.[edit]

Dick Smothers Jr. (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:BASIC / WP:ENT. A contributor to the previous AfD said that major American newspapers had run articles about Mr. Smothers. Those were duplicate copies of this Reuters human-interest story. I looked for additional sources and didn't find much. Here's some trivial coverage of his band [27][28]; his father mentioned him in an interview [29]; a National Post article about the children of celebrities included a paragraph about his family situation [30]. gnu57 13:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, and Sexuality and gender. gnu57 13:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete. Discogs and wikipedia mirrors and adult-themed websites, are about all I can find. Interesting history on this person, but nothing for GNG, ACTOR or MUSIC. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Oaktree b - The media does not cover porn in any way outside of an arrest and maybe a death once in a while. It's not due to a lack of popularity or interest, but due to companies not wanting to be associated with it. Adult sites would be the only source of information for those topics.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      Um, it was more like films of him performing. We can't use those for RS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:22, 1 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Goodies guest stars[edit]

List of The Goodies guest stars (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 list of guest stars fall very closely to WP:NOTDIRECTORY. At the moment the list is inferior to any IMDb listing but even with added context, having a list of guest stars (either stand-alone article, or added to the parent) seems like a bad idea for this kind of show. Gonnym (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails LISTN, no RS with SIGCOV. List seems like FANCRUFT.  // Timothy :: talk  12:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleteper nom fails WP:LISTN and lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:27, 1 March 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Souk Ludhiana[edit]

Gold Souk Ludhiana (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. This article has no sources from July 2011. It has promotional sentences like "is the largest shopping mall in the commercial capital of Punjab." I am unable to find significant coverage from WP:RS. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Google Maps view shows seemingly abandoned building, couldn't find RS on it. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG , lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:V. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eatme.io[edit]

Eatme.io (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Listed sources and the few others I have found seem to be either not reliable, not independent or a PR. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 10:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Based on the fact that its creator is a WP:SPA it is probably a WP:SPAMPAGE and has no notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All of the sources I found was press releases and unreliable sources. Carpimaps (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carpimaps's reasoning. Additionally, we should look into blocking the creator of the page per WP:SPA and WP:COI. RteeeeKed💬📖 00:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I don't know that one article is enough for precedent, but there isn't going to be a consensus to delete this article and I don't see a relist changing that. Star Mississippi 03:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andhra Kesari University[edit]

Andhra Kesari University (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)

[31] It's an announcement of a college bill pass. [32] Nothing to do with notablity of college. [33] annocument, that college will open. [34] PR Material of the owner's dreamy world [35] Funding News [36] Event Based PR News [37] PR Material, Every college tries for providing job. None of them helps for notablity and pass WP:ORG Lordofhunter (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Business. Lordofhunter (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Andhra Pradesh. AllyD (talk) 07:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A university established by state legislation. However recently founded, this is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: It is Notable as It's chancellor is Governor of the State himself and passes by Government of Andhra Pradesh. Misterrrrr (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's too soon to create. Notability is not inheritance, and can't the page be notable if established by notable authority, right? Please share the source, which proves that it pass WP:ORG. Lordofhunter (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with inheritance. All to do with common sense and consensus, which has generally been that universities founded by state legislation are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipeida has it's own guidelines. Please check WP:INHERITORG If you think, sources exist, please share. Lordofhunter (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing whatsoever in WP:INHERITORG is relevant to this article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp Would you be able to locate some past AfDs or other discussions? That would help [me] in my comment — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One that's just been closed, in fact. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: precedent from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bennett University — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:11, 27 February 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 The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. Star Mississippi 15:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Graham (The Tenant of Wildfell Hall)[edit]

Helen Graham (The Tenant of Wildfell Hall) (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 need for a separate article. Almost all of it is simply a regurgitation of what the novel says about her. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I agree with the nominator that most of this information is already on the page for The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. I searched for articles on Helen Graham and could only find one source that primarily focused on her rather than the novel as a whole. GraceEnglishMajor (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Following up on this, the source I found was De Dios Torralbo Caballero, Juan. “Anne Brontë’s Helen and Her Atypical Insuborination: ‘A Will of Her Own.’” Romanian Journal of English Studies, vol. 16, no. 1, 2019, pp. 16–24., https://doi.org/10.1515/rjes-2019-0003. GraceEnglishMajor (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. She's the main character of a famous feminist novel, and I'm confident a standalone could be written for her. But no one has done that in ten years. The only significant edit to this article is the one that created it. I agree with the nom's statement; I'd just have WP:BLAR'd it. I don't see any reason to delete it outright. -- asilvering (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect WP:PRESERVE in case more sources are found Dronebogus (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Delete — poorly named, so it is an unlikely search. Suspicious lack of references. Seems more of a page to hold a couple of templates full of complex relationship details, also with no references. WP:OR.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect a single source and not enough content to justify a standalone article. Mostly redundant with what's already in the novel's article. Rkieferbaum (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

West Coast FC[edit]

West Coast FC (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, no hint of notability other than the fact that it exists. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In November 2017, West Coast FC rebranded as Orange County Surf Soccer Club. That was what I thought, anyway, until I found the current West Coast Fubol Club website. I guess the partnership with "Surf Cup Sports" didn't last. Anyway, it's a soccer club for kids. A quick search in Wikipedia Library yields the press release with Surf Cup Sports, and that's it. In fact, "West Coast FC" actually yields more hits for a certain West Coast FC in Perth, Australia. Does not meet WP:GNG, let alone WP:ORG. The current page has zero sources and is old information with placeholders for more information that was never added. Emphatically delete. Nice kit in the infobox though. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:09, 25 February 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 Gorillaz#Band members. Star Mississippi 03:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russel Hobbs[edit]

Russel Hobbs (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)

What makes this fictional character/musician notable? This article has no reception section, mentions seem in passing (fail WP:SIGCOV) or are niche reviews/comments on a piece of fiction (interview/character fictional biography) released to promote his fictional band. As such, this article seems to fail WP:GNG. A summary of this could be merged to Gorillaz#Band_members, which is very bare-bones at present. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Music. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I remember there was a deletion discussion for Noodle (from the same V-band) and I think it ended no consensus. Personally I think they should all be covered at the parent article but I would want it to be a single unified merge— having articles for some members but not others of a fictional group with only four (consistent) characters in it is kind of silly.

Dronebogus (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - here is the link to the prior AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noodle (character) (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus We have to start somewhere. It's totally plausible some of the band members are notable and others are not. The section in their article should provide a decent summary for all, and the ones which are notable can keep their dedicated articles. Not seeing anything silly here :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per rationale above. At the very least this is a completely plausible redirect, so nomination for deletion seems to nominate WP:BEFORE. Dronebogus (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has a lot of information about the character on the article and it has been lasting for 17 years, so leave it there, just like 2-D, Murdoc Niccals, and Noodle still remain on the website. RTSthestardust (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ITSLONG... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Gorillaz. Fictional character Hobbs fails WP:GNG because nothing has been written about him apart from being in the band. Hobbs is not discussed by himself in WP:SECONDARY sources; he's only discussed in the context of the band. All the other character articles should also be merged to Gorillaz: 2-D (character), Noodle (Gorillaz) and Murdoc Niccals. All four of the character articles are in violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction which requires us to focus primarily on how the fictional character intersects with the real world. All four have too much in-universe focus. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. The sources cover this character as part of the whole band, and not as a separately notable entity. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:36, 24 February 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. Legoktm (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American Foundation for the Future[edit]

Latin American Foundation for the Future (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 coverage to meet WP:ORG. Nothing in gnews and a plain Google search yields directory listings. LibStar (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, England, and Peru. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No sources found from me. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Vozul (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ana (programming language)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SOURCES Vozul (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Vozul (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Issues with verifiability and notability have been resolved. Vozul (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it fails WP:GNG. Ana is notable among a significant fraction of solar physicists, a field that is eminently notable itself, and is used by an (admittedly now small) number of them. On the other hand, other languages that served a niche market and are now never used (such as Logo (programming language)) are also notable. Ana is notable in the context of IDL (programming language) history, as it is the only known fork of that language that survives from the time when IDL was freely distributed under a proto-open-source license. One bottom-up clone of IDL, Gnu Data Language, is known to exist; IDL, GDL, and Ana form a unique group of vectorized data analysis languages based primarily on FORTRAN, but interpreted and suitable for performing vectorized operations on large data sets. IDL and GDL are widely used to this day throughout the space science community, and though Ana seems to have largely faded in recent years it formed a major part of the shift, in the late 20th Century, toward vectorized high level languages for scientific use.

The article certainly fails WP:SOURCES, but that is a good reason for it to be fixed, not for it to be deleted entirely. 216.147.124.46 (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was me Zowie (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC) -- my editing skills are a bit rusty and I forgot to log in.[reply]

OK, I stepped in and added a couple of references to key papers: the Title 1989 paper that (in addition to describing several granulation results and introducing subsonic filtering) showed Ana's versatility; and the Hurlburt et al. 1997 paper that introduced the TRACE Image Viewer. Hopefully that helps with WP:SOURCES as well. Zowie (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is this article isn't needed. If someone wants to work on this in draft space for a potential merge, let me know. Happy to provide. Star Mississippi 03:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of rice[edit]

Culture of rice (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)

Written like an ad and does not cite any sources whatsoever. shelovesneo (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shelovesneo (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and History. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A10, duplicates the scope of History of rice cultivation under an incorrect title. And there are major disagreements in key facts. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is already an article, history of rice cultivation, that covers the intended scope of this. The "culture of rice" article has a title that many people will think is about a different meaning of culture (i.e. arts, customs, etc.). The "culture of rice" article has no citations, which makes its content of little or no value.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Rice cultivation" isn't the cultural history of rice, but I think the article creator meant "culture" as used in "aquaculture", growing stuff/raising plants or animals for human use. Already covered as above, redundant article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Move to "Cultivation of rice" This article was created today. That it entirely overlaps with history of rice cultivation in its current form does not mean a more developed article on the topic would need to be equally redundant. In fact, it's strange that we had an article specifically on the history of rice cultivation, without one on rice cultivation itself. small jars tc 15:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original Creator here

Now, what seems to be the problem here? The article was created last night, so I'm not quite sure if it's expected to be completed in one night. Of course it won't look very good right away. I've added citations today and will continue working on the article. It was one of the articles in the requested articles list. Are we clear? Noel Malik (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Malik is correct in saying that is listed at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences#Agriculture, and had been there since 17:01, 24 September 2019. The request looks like this:

• culture of rice (fr:Culture du riz/ja:稲作)

Nevertheless, the article covers the same ground as history of rice cultivation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The request was based on a mistranslation of the French word "culture", which has several meanings, one of which is "farming".-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the title could be changed to be less ambiguous, but that's besides the point. the article covers the same ground as history of rice cultivation. – Couldn't this only be true if rice cultivation was a mainly historical activity? A more legitimate complaint would be that most of the information you would want on a rice cultivation article is already included between rice and paddy field. small jars tc 09:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Noel Malik: I'm not quite sure if it's expected to be completed in one night – the draft feature is helpful if you want to avoid this kind of scrutiny when you've just started writing. small jars tc 09:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original creator here (again)

I'm putting a hold onto this article for now. You can decide if there's a point in producing the article if the content is already there in the History of rice cultivation article, although it doesn't make sense for a "history of rice cultivation" article to exist if there's no article on rice cultivation itself Noel Malik (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]