Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< November 27	November 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Tioye

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

Article about former footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. PROD was declined without making any effort to demonstrate that either guideline is satisfied. My English-, French- and Thai-language searches yielded nearly no coverage of this player. I did find a messageboard post that confirms he played for Muangthong United and that he wore the #9 shirt for the club, but it's not a reliable source and the coverage is far from being significant. Jogurney (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unsourced BLP article that fails SPORTBASIC and GNG as noted above. Zero hits in GNews. Tails Wx 03:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all forementioned reasons above. Lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.-- 12:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Tumbuka Arch (talk)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hilde Vanhove

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

Fails WP:NBAND, WP:NSINGER. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 20:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Belgium. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sourcing found for notability; even in .be sources, we simply find confirmation of various performances given as part of a musical group. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per forementioned reason above. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first few paragraphs discuss that she shared a stage with notable jazz artists and that's fine. But also that she was voted the best jazz vocalist, "she was awarded a government medal" and it's all supported by this source: [1]. But I don't see any of this there. What goverment medal subject has recevied? Maybe any of those: Orders,_decorations,_and_medals_of_Belgium? Need to find out. Due to the fact that jazz art is not intended for a wide audience and therefore cannot, with rare exceptions, pass criteria #2, #3, we should entirely rely on expert reviews, if there was any. It could be criteria #10 or #12 here, because of "In November 2015, she sang a gala concert for National Serbian TV in Novi Sad with the Aleksandar Dujin Orkestra." Whether it was substantial or not is not clear, because both sources are YouTube. Roxy177 (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; notability only seems to be from working with other musicians. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 19:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aridon Bllaca

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

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest thing I found was this and this, which does not suffice. JTtheOG (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Kosovo. JTtheOG (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all forementioned reasons above. Lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.-- 12:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Tumbuka Arch (talk)

Soft Delete- only statistics sources , I found from my search on Google Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of New Caledonia international footballers. Daniel (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brice Dahité

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

Redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, France, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps notable in particular region or field. Yet requires more content and sources to support a keep. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 21:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, nothing to suggest independent notability. JoelleJay (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, as suggested above. The sources don't show the subject's notability. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Java applet. Daniel (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AppletViewer

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

The article does not contain any sources, and all I can find online is stuff by the companies that make it, tutorials, documentation, or references to it's existence, which in my opinion fails WP:GNG. There's been tags on this page since 2019 and 2020 and no improvements have been made. Lewcm Talk to me! 19:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lewcm Talk to me! 19:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Java has been notified of this AFD via their talk page. Lewcm Talk to me! 19:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a suitable redirect target: Java Development Kit. Pavlor (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to or merge with Java applet. Java Development Kit is too broad a subject to redirect to, but applets are the ideal destination for context. Something like "Applets could be viewed independently of a browser with the appletviewer executable as part of the JDK." SWinxy (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mill Milk

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

I think it is an organization that fails WP:NCORP microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 19:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Internet, and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to be a continuation of the Apple Daily, but I don't see many mentions of this Youtube channel in RS. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
or merge a small portion to the Apple Daily article? Oaktree b (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There is clear consensus that the article content should not be deleted, redirected, merged etc. Some editors believe that the article content should be reorganized, but no suggestion came close to achieving consensus so it is a matter for talkpage discussion rather than AFD. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mongol invasion of Central Asia

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

The existence of this article is essentially WP:SYNTH - it summarizes the events of two individually notable campaigns, but is not in itself notable, and it is not discussed as such in WP:RS. All the information in the article is summarized in either Mongol conquest of the Qara Khitai or Mongol conquest of the Khwarazmian Empire; this should probably either be deleted or redirected to Mongol invasions and conquests. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT per discussion with 3family6 below, I think Disambiguate also just about works. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Asia, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yes, this seems like a redundant, synthesized topic. Delete per nom.~~ ~~Withdrawn for now while I talk to the editor.~~ The article has expanded and its purpose clarified since I originally voted, now fully for keeping. Remsense留 19:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH. An interesting case, though, as it is literally the opposite of a WP:POVFORK. Instead of splitting one subject, it takes two valid topics and attempts to artificially combine them into one. Maybe a POVSPOON? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or ~~userfy~~ Disambiguate as there is more to Mongol campaigns in Central Asia than just the summaries of these two campaigns, although they were the largest. The invasion of Cumania, for example. I'm actually in the process of creating some of that content. There is a need for an overarching treatment of how the specific campaigns all relate to each other. More directly to the issue, though, is that a quick search of "Mongol invasion of Central Asia" brings up multiple sources about the topic, not all of them about only the invasion of Khwarezmia. There's even at least two with that exact title. Here's some of the results: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've greatly expanded the content to include other operations and campaigns in Central Asia. Should address the SYNTH issues.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Your expansions to the article and comments above indicate that you believe a substantial portion of the "invasion of Central Asia" began before the commencement Mongol invasion of Khwarazmia in 1218—this is not supported by any of the sources you have provided:

Islam 2016 states "a punitive action against the Kara-Khitai was the prelude to the all-out Mongol invasion of Central Asia in 1218–1219". The campaigns such as the invasion of Cumania are not mentioned in the article entitled "The Mongol Invasion of Central Asia", which is completely devoted to the invasion of Khwarazmia. It is clear that Islam's conception of the "Invasion of Central Asia" is just our article Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire under a different name, and completely unrelated to your conception of there being "more to Mongol campaigns in Central Asia than just the summaries of these two campaigns".
Abasov 2008 is an entry from an encylopedia entitled "Historical Atlas Of Central Asia"—as such, many entries include the words "Central Asia" in their titles, but are described on WP under different names. See for instance the entry "The Arab Conquest of Central Asia" (on WP Muslim conquest of Transoxiana) or "Timur and the Timurid Empire in Central Asia (on WP Timur & Timurid Empire). Aside from that, it must be noted that Abasov, like Islam, states outright "In 1219, Genghis Khan invaded Central Asia"—again, he does not mention Cumania, or any other campaigns, clearly showing that he is just referring to the invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire.
The academics.hamilton.edu source similarly states "The Mongols began their invasion of Central Asia in 1218... on a mission of vengeance against the ruler of Khwarezm"
I am confused by your citations above to Biran 2009 and a Boundless World History textbook, as neither use the phrase "Invasion of Central Asia". Nevertheless, neither discusses events before 1216.

So to summarize, the sources explicitly titled "The Mongol Invasion of Central Asia" only discuss the Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire, while none of the five sources you have provided support the inclusion of sections on the "Destruction of the Merkit–Naiman alliance", the "Submission of the Uyghurs and Karluks", or the "Destruction of the Merkit–Kipchak alliance". As it stands, the article thus contains quite a bit more WP:SYNTH than before. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what part of the world do those sections I added deal with? Geographic Central Asia. It is not SYNTH to mention campaigns that happened in Central Asia as part of a series of campaigns in Central Asia, especially when the argument in question is that there is nothing else that happened in Central Asia. The five sources above that I mentioned I listed before I created this new content. I did not cite them to support these additions. I added these additions because there are additional battles that happened in Central Asia, when the argument is that there wasn't anything else happening in Central Asia.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources that include what I've added as part of Mongol activity in Central Asia: pages 8-10, [7], [8]--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the argument in question is that there is nothing else that happened in Central Asia That is not the argument: as written in the deletion nomination above, the article is not in itself notable—sources do not discuss it as an entity, and to combine multiple sections on individually notable campaigns that are not explicitly connected by reliable sources is WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You contended that the new content I added did not belong in this article. That's what I mean about arguing that nothing else occurred in Central Asia. They are explicitly connected, in the source material. One rolled into the next. The early mopping up of Merkit and Naiman opposition directly flowed into the conquest of Qara Khitai because Kuchlug seized the Qara Khitan throne. And then the Mongols were rubbing up against Khwarazm, which led to that conquest. This is reflected in many of the sources. And this source by one of the historians that I cite in the new content that I added explicitly says the preliminary expansion started in 1209.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, events flowing into each other is generally how time works. I don't think this getting anywhere productive, so I'll disengage and let the closer evaluate. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If sources discuss all this happening, it isn't original synthesis. There's sources that include both the conquest of Qara Khitai and Khwarazm in descriptions of the Mongol conquest of Central Asia. And now I've provided sources showing that the other actions in geographic Central Asia are described as occurring in that part of the world, and now I've shown that there's at least one source connecting all of these other actions to the big campaign that was the conquest of Khwarazm. While the article still needs work, the concerns for why it is it is nominated for deletion are addressed. Editors are supposed to do their due diligence first and consult sources before nominating for deletion. I can see why the source material would be difficult to work through, but now it's provided, so the notability concerns don't hold water. And whatever remaining SYNTH concerns there might have been, the Timothy May article I linked to above clears those up. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. I'll be happy to clean up this article once I've finished the current project I'm working on. It just so happens through coincidence that my creation of articles related to the Mongol conquest of Siberia happened to also have a lot of pertinence to, and overlap with, the early Central Asian endeavors, so I had material relatively at the ready.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3family6, non-leading question, could you articulate what additional value is contributed to the wiki by the existence of this article as opposed to all its pertinent information (in a future, complete version to your satisfaction) being contained in the other relevant articles? Remsense留 01:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is pertinent to having any over-arching articles about large, inter-related campaigns when we have articles about the constituent campaigns and battles of which they are comprised? We could get even larger - for instance, Anne Broadbridge mentions the "Western Campaign", which is basically everything west and southwest of Mongolia as opposed to the campaign against the Chinese states (note: I'm not saying that in this case we should, but that there's precedent in reliable sources to do so). It's useful for readers (which includes myself) to have articles that are broad summaries that show how a series of specific campaigns are related. Secondly, while some of the content I've added could have its own article, specifically the submission of Uyghur and Karluk states, and the Battle of Chem will have its own article, some of the content I don't think will ever merit its own article. It's more notable in how it relates to these other key events than stand-alone.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The precise meaning of 'campaign' is key here. It may sound like a pedantic point, but is there any notion that the various central Asian campaigns were viewed at the time as being part of a larger 'campaign' as it were? Or is is simply a historiographical construction? I think an article could be viable either way, but it definitely affects what I think the focus and scale of the article should be. Remsense留 01:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great question. The conquest of Qara Khitai seems to be part of the same campaign as the initial operations in 1209 that followed-up Jochi's Siberian campaign, as it essentially is part of the "mopping up" of opposition factions that date back to the rise of Genghis Khan. And there's some historical speculation that the Uyghurs and Karluks submitted because the Mongols weren't in their territory just to pursue the Merkits. The part that's less clear is if Khwarazm was viewed as part of this. And I that depends on if there was always a plan to invade Khwarazm, and that's debated by historians. So it's a historical construction, but possibly reflective of how the Mongols saw it. After Khwarazm, it seems a lot clearer that the Mongols now saw the entire West as a possession of the imperial family and the respective campaigns were all part of securing that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

could you articulate what additional value is contributed to the wiki by the existence of this article as opposed to all its pertinent information (in a future, complete version to your satisfaction) being contained in the other relevant articles? Remsense and AirshipJungleman29, I could see each of the sections I added being turned into an article, if they aren't already, and this article being converted into a reference article such as a dab or list article . I think there's value to having it in full article form, but I can see that as alternate option and I wouldn't be opposed to that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3family6, yes, I see it now, I'm going to reverse my original position now. Thanks for the answers! Remsense留 03:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how any of that discussion solves what seems to be core issue. What need is there for 'an overarching treatment' of the various (apparently very distinct) campaigns? I am not seeing them treated as a unified concept in the sources. What am I missing? Can someone give a short (paragraph or less) explanation of that, please? I am not hard to persuade to keep an article, but I'm just not seeing how this is not WP:SYNTH and probably WP:OR. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original synthesis as there are no conclusions reached that aren't in the source material. I challenge editors to show where that is the case. The biggest issue I see is that most references to "Mongol invasion/conquest of Central Asia" refer to Khwarazm or both Qara Khitai and Khwarazm. But, given that 1) these other campaigns/operations also occurred in geographic Central Asia (where else could they be discussed? They aren't Europe or Siberia, although there's overlap. The securing of Xinjiang and surrounding area could be discussed in the invasions China, but if editors are opposing inclusion here, they'd have to oppose inclusion there, as well), and 2) there are academic sources to support both the submission of the Uyghurs and Karluks and the "mopping-up" campaign beginning in 1209. The sections on Qara Khitai and Khwarazm aren't cited, but that's a WP:V issue and there's plenty of sources to support that material that just aren't yet cited.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I still don't see this either. I don't see how the sentence "Mongol expansion into Central Asia began in 1209" requires an entire article to be created on the "Mongol invasion of Central Asia", especially as the same author says differently elsewhere and two other sources define the "Mongol invasion of Central Asia" to be the Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire. If this article is kept, it has to be moved to something like "List of Mongol campaigns in Central Asia", as I did for the article formerly titled Mongol conquest of Siberia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be moved to "Mongol campaigns in Central Asia". AirshipJungleman29, how would you categorize the minor 1209 campaign in Central Asia if it was created as it's own article? I.e., in the infobox, how would "part of the Mongol campaigns in Central Asia be incorrect, especially given that it can be cited to a source?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have already created it as its own article: Battle of Irtysh River (13th century). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. You would argue that the follow-up activities that would be included in the aftermath section of that article and my forthcoming Battle of Chem River article would be sufficient?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background and aftermath sections are all that would be required 3family6. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I am not sure that even a merge to that subject is worthwhile. I am still firmly in the 'Delete' camp unless someone can explain why this is an encyclopaedic subject in itself and not a synthesis that artificially combines separate campaigns in a way that the scholarship does not support. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarship does support it. There's debate as to whether or not Khwarazm was always the end goal after Qara Khitai, and whether it was a goal or not, if the Irghiz River skirmish was a one-off or the prelude to the invasion (which in part depends on when it happened - 1209 or 1219, which is also debated).-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 3family6 and Remsense. And anyway, for the editors who want to delete it, why not just split it into separate articles and leave it as a list of the central asian campaigns? JM (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping this as a list is another possibility if the consensus is to delete.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JM2023, because we already have those articles (Mongol conquest of the Qara Khitai and Mongol conquest of the Khwarazmian Empire), and we already have a list of Mongol invasions and conquests as well. As the nomination pointed out, this is essentially WP:SYNTH - it summarizes the events of two individually notable campaigns, but is not in itself notable, and it is not discussed as [a unique, separate topic] in WP:RS. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I buy the argument that each and any way we structure information on this website has to have been done before in a previously published source. To extend that reasoning, the section Mongol invasions and conquests § Central Asia is SYNTH, and Mongol invasions and conquests § History and outcomes must be split up into precisely the military activities that are independently notable.
I did briefly attempt to disprove the assertion that this subject had never been published about under a title like this (which I gave up early without resolution after about ten pages of search hits from the first publisher I checked).
AirshipJungleman29, you're something of a subject matter expert on this, so question for you: is there any title and structure for this material that would satisfy your sense of history communication, or is the framing so problematic that it beguiles readers into misunderstandings?
To me, who knows little about this, it seems like a natural way to group information about Mongol expansion in a certain geographic and temporal space. Am I missing something? Is the article missing something? Looking back over the Mongol invasions and conquests article, I see the heading "West Asia", see a single three-sentence paragraph, and this intimidating section hatnote: What if I want a deeper understanding than the three sentences, but I don't want to read six separate articles? Is Wikipedia unable to summarise material to an intermediate level of detail because that level of detail doesn't really have a precedent in academic publishing? Folly Mox (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Folly Mox Mongol invasions and conquests is a pretty terrible article. I have no idea why it's organised geographically rather than chronologically, as is done for literally every war summary on Wikipedia. It is also ludicrously short on detail—the three sentence paragraph you outline could easily be twenty times the length. As it stands, the article's organisation is WP:SYNTH; but its content is not, because many sources do give an overview of the Mongol conquests.
To answer your question, the only way this article should exist in my view is under the title List of Mongol campaigns in Central Asia. But we do not have articles on subjects like List of Napoleonic War battles in modern Germany, or List of Second Sino-Japanese War campaigns in modern Shandong, and I don't think we should, even though they would undoubtedly be "intermediate level summaries" between Napoleonic Wars/Second Sino-Japanese War and Lists of battles of the French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars/List of military engagements of the Second Sino-Japanese War. Let me know if that answers your question or if I totally misread it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 thank you for that explanation, that makes a lot more sense to me.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant to respond to this days ago, and had a reply all drafted, then my phone crashed and I forgot I never posted it.
I think I'm of the opinion that simply reorganising information cannot be SYNTH, which involves drawing conclusions from a combination of sources where none of the sources individually supports the conclusion. The closest guidance we have for this opinion might be WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY, or its catchily named upstairs neighbour WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION, which sounds like a curse hex where someone changed a single character to avoid a naming taboo. Both of these are from an essay.
That's not to say we can just write about whatever we want as long as it's sourced adequately: some things are not encyclopaedic topics. Being that the nom and the creator seem to be coming to an agreement below, I don't think I'll be leaving a not-vote, but I did want to circle back to this before it closed. Folly Mox (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my keep vote to ""split off"" into individual articles the content that doesn't already have an article (I'm planning to do this, in the meantime I can put the content in my sandbox), and ""disambiguate"' the title. I disagree with AirshipJungleman29 and Last1in that this article is SYNTH, but AirshipJungleman29 makes a really good point about this article not following existing conventions that others in this subject matter follow. I think it will be superfluous and redundant. Remsense and JM2023, see my change of mind here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 3family 6; also Remsense. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. As a closer, I have a few options available to me: Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, Draftify and Rename/Move. I can not "split off" this article into other articles or disambiguate it. Those are editorial decisions to be made by you all if it is decided that this article should be Kept. So most of this discussion here, while interesting, is besides the point and can occur on the article talk page if there is a consensus to Keep this article. Right now, I don't see a consensus so I'm relisting this discussion. As for any future contributions to this discussion, please keep them simple, realizing the limitations that a closer deals with, and move content-related discussions of what might happen later to this article to the article talk page. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right (sorry Liz), redirect to Mongol invasions and conquests#Central Asia, so the article creator can work on splitting out relevant information without losing access to the article history, and so existing links continue to function. Cleanup will involve removing the to-be circular hatnote at the redirect target. Folly Mox (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. As is, I'm copying the information I added to my sandbox.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does the "Mongol invasion of Central Asia" exists as a single coherent subject, as oppose to WP:SYN? Yes, it does, because it appears as such in books, as one can easily find out using Google books search. For example, Palgrave Concise Historical Atlas of Central Asia (chapter IV, page 22), Conflict and Security in Central Asia and the Caucasus, whole book named Mongol Invasion of Central Asia, and so and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All these invasions were sequentially undertaken by the armies of Genghis Khan, which unifies them as a single subject. This is pretty much as the Mongol invasion of Europe, which also consisted of many separate rides to occupy different specific territories. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per article improvement and above arguments. Could be treated as a disambiguation page but it is not synth to give an overview of the included campaigns as demonstrated above. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Editors have removed promotional wording and improved sourcing, any further discussions can take place on talk pages. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 16:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FRET (Software)

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

Subject may be notable (appears in the NASA software catalog) but the article is so promotional in tone it would be better to blow it up and start over. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 18:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 18:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, this needs attention of someone familiar with the verification domain. If all available coverage is non-independent, and there's no evidence of secondary coverage, there's ultimately a question of whether sources that allow writing an article about the project exist, regardless of the project's importance. PaulT2022 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we 'blow up' the article and re create it when we can just rewrite it, promotional tone can be fixed and is not too serious of a problem. Sangsangaplaz (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: agree with Sangsangaplaz. The cure for poor writing is a rewrite, not a deletion. Owen× ☎ 23:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. "blowing up" is not a valid response to promotional tone and not an appropriate use of AfD. @Pear1020: did you conduct any WP:BEFORE analysis? I understand the concerns about the state of the article but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 14:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MicrobiologyMarcus: I did, but from my perspective it seemed to need a fundamental rewrite, then I tagged it for speedy deletion, which was declined by an admin who recommended sending the article to AfD for community input on whether or not to keep it . Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 14:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A fundamental rewrite doesn't necessarily mean that it should be deleted. AFD is only for discussing whether an article's subject is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, with the intention of removing the article from public view indefinitely if the conclusion is delete. If you wan't to rewrite it, you can just type the new version up in a user subpage or text editor, then replace the article's contents with the new version. Liu1126 (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to piggyback on this and say that the effort for a re-write isn't even required. You can challenge and remove content yourself, and start a discussion on the talk page and flag ({{ping}}) the page writer with your concerns. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 15:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what will happen with page next? مکرم (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted all content that I felt was promotional. And added more sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukarram0126 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as a lot of editing has occurred on this article since its nomination thus a second look would be advisable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should we delete "Nomination for deletion" template from top of the article? Mukarram (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the discussion is still in progress. The closing admin will remove the template when closing if needed. Liu1126 (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks! Mukarram (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The nomination was flawed in the first place. As my colleagues above have noted nom failed to state a criterion for deletion. The sources in the article, which include two scholarly papers, are sufficient to satisfy the GNG. Perhaps they weren't in there at nomination time? No matter, this is a failure of BEFORE. Central and Adams (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It means that the article should remain available on Wikipedia for everyone. Mukarram (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to BattleTech or a subsection thereof, which can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 01:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BattleMech

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

I thought we cleaned BattleTech WP:FANCRUFT years ago... somehow, this survived. Almost unreferenced, this is just a mix of BattleTech history + plot summary, and should be redirected to BattleTech just like BattleTech (fictional setting) was (that said, that article was boldly redirected (with some merge) without discussion by User:BalinKingOfMoria so we might as well have formal AfD for that remainder to sanction both redirects). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' as above. Too much information, and none of it of any interest to most people.TheLongTone (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BattleTech: A good WP:ATD-R per the nom. Doesn't appear to be any RS information that needs to be merged. -- 2pou (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I also support the bold redirection mentioned in the nomination. -2pou (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep [9] has quite a few paragraphs describing BattleMechs (see "KNOW YOUR ROLE"). [10] is all about a single BattleMech. [11] has a fair bit of coverage (at least 1 page) with quotes like "Battlemechs are capable of movement called torso-twisting..." and details about overheating etc. [12], 2nd book in that series, has similar coverage. All are independent, reliable sources. Hobit (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is just a game guide. WP:NOTGUIDE and game-guides how to pilot a BattleMech or use them in games do not help us much. Then we have a plot summary, a passing mentoion, and a passing mention, all related to the video game. I am not impressed by these sources, sorry. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the first source: GAMEGUIDE doesn't disallow the use of sources that are gameguides, it tells us to not write a gameguide. And in this case the source describes, in great detail, the topic in the context of a specific game. The second is about a specific BattleMech, which is a lot of plot, but it can give as a sentence or two about the largest of its kind, which seems useful. The third and forth are a few paragraphs--that's a lot more than is typically a "passing mention" and they cover details like how the Mechs move and why that makes using them effectively difficult, something that belongs in an article like this. All are reliable, independent, secondary sources. The first covers the topic in detail, the second covers a narrow subset of the topic in significant detail, and the the last two are significant coverage. WP:N is met with some margin. And there is a massive amount of primary sources. In fact, finding these secondary sources is only difficult because of the massive number of primary ones. We can write a fine article with what we have. Hobit (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO discussion of how battlemechs move in a specific game (here, MechWarrior 4: Vengeance) is perhaps relevant to that game but does not help us estabilish notability of the concept of battlemech. The book's chapter is about the game, helps estabilish the game's notability, but WP:NOTINHERITED. Its discusion of the game in the context of some interface on piloting mecha, or programming their movement, is again not relevant to BattleMech concept, just video game design and perhaps mecha in general. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two points. #1 Our standard is WP:N. There can be no doubt that those sources cover the topic of BattleMech in a way that goes beyond "in-passing". So we've met WP:N. Secondly BattleMechs are going to be covered in the context of a game--they are part of a game (and fiction), there is no other way to cover them. Hobit (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I do not see which sources cover this topic in a way that is not in-passing and goes beyond plot summary or gameguide stuff. Which means that we cannot write encyclopedic article, since per WP:NOT states our articles need to be more than plot summaries or game guides. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. This is a fictional topic with games and books. Dozens of games and books, maybe more than 100. This topic is the primary focus of those games and books. None of that causes the topic to meet our inclusion guidelines, though I do find it indicative of a notable topic. Having multiple sources that are reliable, independent sources is, however, the very definition of notable for Wikipedia. We have that. All of these are more than one paragraph. Some are significantly more than that. We are over WP:N. Unless I'm missing something, GAMEGUIDE and NOTPLOT are about how we write the article, they don't restrict sources or add requirements beyond WP:N. Do you disagree with that? If so, could you quote which parts you think either cause us to exclude sources or add requirements beyond WP:N? Hobit (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Hobit. BOZ (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Pou and TheLongTone. In my opinion we can succinctly cover that in the major article, especially that article is not sourced properly. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to generate clarity between keep or redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 17:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems fine, I don't see enough worth keeping as a stand-alone article here. Oaktree b (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BattleTech#Setting, does not appear to pass WP:GNG as-is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like we're in DONTLIKEIT land. No arguments about why the GNG isn't met given the sources listed. Oyi. Hobit (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit: WP:GNG states that ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." While I agree with the assertion that WP:NOTGUIDE only applies to articles within Wikipedia, not sources, the fact is that WP:INDISCRIMINATE needs to be passed as well. Simply citing game guides still calls into question the relative cultural significance of the topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect The only sources really just cover what they do in game, and don't really provide any critical reception or analysis for a meaningful article. When you subtract the WP:GAMEGUIDE style coverage, you don't pass the bar for WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above.Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ and salt (again). Daniel (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B Major (South African musician)

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

Non-notable individual who has their stage name admin protected, see B Major (record producer). Nominated for non-notable awards and cited a user written source and other cited sources are primary and non-reliable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and ultimately WP:ANYBIO. dxneo (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, and South Africa. dxneo (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. dxneo (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Daily Voice article used as sourcing is the only thing I can find. Having your article basically locked from re-creation is never a good sign; this individual is not notable, lack of sourcing (one source is all I can find, literally nothing else). SALT applies here too I'm thinking. Oaktree b (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nomination. Also, there are at least 15 salting protections that I'm aware of (done by me). See this list beginning with the first item there from 4 January 2021 on through 20 March 2023. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B major (person) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B Major (Music Producer). --Hammersoft (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's some kind of record. Wow, that's excessive. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a long history. You may find Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmusique99/Archive interesting. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, persistent fellow. Almost to the point of "chasing a road runner using Acme products" persistent. Oaktree b (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A search found nothing that shows notability. Fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Article should be deleted per nomination. @ Hammersoft, you have hit the nail on the head. Ezra Cricket (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The artist is upcoming and featured in many newspapers, including and international news media called free press info. Where they talk about the subject in detail not just a mention. I also found other articles which are slight mentions such as Plainsman Newspaper. He has also been in the IOL News media site in Africa with south African rapper YoungstaCPT most of the articles can be found using the search term B Major SA. I'd say give this artist page a 3 month trial to see what else comes up.Frankymulls (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please link the sources where he is covered in depth. Mach61 (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please see https://freepressinfo.com/sunday-morning-de-b-major-sa-nominada-a-cancion-del-ano-en-los-cape-town-artist-awards/ and https://www.dailyvoice.co.za/lifestyle-entertainment/major-hit-in-the-making-mitchells-plain-muso-drops-new-album-2507039b-a202-4425-b9df-2a576989517ahttps://freepressinfo.com/sunday-morning-de-b-major-sa-nominada-a-cancion-del-ano-en-los-cape-town-artist-awards/ Frankymulls (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at freepressinfo.com and scanning the current articles in each section...every single one of them is written by the guy who founded the site. It's effectively a self published source. The Daily Voice, as a source to support notability of this person, has been used many times in the past without success. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Mach61. Further, we don't give articles a three month trial to see if they become notable in that time. Even if we did, this has been going on now for almost three years. Nothing's changed that impacts their notability footprint with respect to Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to bad mouth anyone but Frankymulls what's gonna change in a span of three months that did not happen in three years? I know the subject is able to pull some strings and most likely fabricate sources, which I believe is definitely how they got their article afloat for this long. I never saw this article at NPR/South Africa. The subject pays editors (mainly new) to write about him, and I'm ashamed to say I'm a victim of that, which is why I was amazed when I saw their article here (of course with no RS). He saw that I created Mvzzle, Rethabile Khumalo, and "Umlilo" then they approached me at my talk then WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger and promised to pay me if I can write about them. If there was no keep !vote I was gonna lean towards speedy, I don't know why it is so important for him to be on Wikipedia and even to go as far as to fabricate source but such behavior cannot be tolerated. dxneo (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
user:Dxneo you ask what will change in 3 months that did not happen in 3 years? I can't answer that directly but I can say his latest article in daily voice says he signed with a Notable musician this year in August and is busy with his first Album which is powered by the south African national lottery.

That is what makes it different from all your attempts trying to creste the article, this time there is actual proof that the guy exists

. And that genuine journalists wrote about him at free will, the newspapers even have a wikipedia page which can be found here Daily Voice (South African newspaper)

And has hundreds of thousands readers daily.

Please do your research before taking your personal vendetta out on wikipedia, from what you told me it sounds like you out to get revenge bud.

There are other ways to get back at him. Frankymulls (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has ever contested that he "exists". It's not enough for a person to "exist" to be on Wikipedia. That a newspaper has a Wikipedia article here does not mean that someone they write about is automatically notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED. As to your accusations of a personal vendetta on the part of Dxneo, I strongly advise you to carefully read and from this point on adhere to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Comment on content, not the contributor. Your attacking another editor does nothing to help your argument and actually undermines your own argument. Nobody is going to be convinced you're right and we're all wrong because you think someone has a personal vendetta. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hear your point but the artist actually meets at least 1 requirement at WP:ANYBIO which is 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.

Also to mention the subject has been featured in a very popular newspaper in Cape town south Africa and a Spanish News Media site which both is secondary from the subject and the news reported by the journalists from these sources are reliable and secondary from each other and the subject.

I see the long excessive trys to create the article on B Major (South African musician), user:Dxneo somehow you have been a sockpocket all along and the energy I get from this deletion is that you have some personal vendetta with the guy. Which we do not allow on wikipedia, your involvement in this deletion gives it the impression that this guy didnt pay you due to your last attempt? And you created the article in the first place knowing the guy wasn't that notable at the time?

Being featured in "multiple" news sources means at least more than 1 article covered in depth about the subject which this article passes. Not to mention WP:Stub. This article definitely has the potential to grow and be more notable in his field unlike the other article I created which is Doc Shebeleza (South African musician)

This artist has a history on wikipedia but it shouldn't determine his future on wikipedia, at this time he at least meets 1/2 requirements and should be in no ways harm of being deleted. Frankymulls (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Frankymulls, actually I refused to get paid as I thought I was doing a good thing, and at that time I was inexperienced citing even primary sources meaning I did not know if the subject was notable or not (I did not know anything about notability). The sources you're talking about are written like wiki articles and are likely promotional, the only verifiable of the subject is this one. Oh and yeah maybe I'm a sockpuppet, that's why the admins trusted me with so many perms not once but twice. The subject never charted, was never nominated for any notable award, and never received any recording certifications as per RiSA. I am here to ensure that this is a safe place, I don't do personal attacks. dxneo (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A subject/musician don't need to chart to have a wikipedia page. WP:NOTABILITY Depends on WP:Significant Coverage and Secondary Sources. Which the subject has and it covers him in depth, plus they are newspapers who keeps archives. Whatever is written on his wiki article can be found at least on 2 of the reliable sources which is sited. Frankymulls (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you know anything about journalism you will know that if you're writing about a new subject, you have to introudce it properly to your readers. If it's a person, their real names , what they do, date of birth and why you're writing about the subject. Frankymulls (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's not made any significant cultural impact, BIO point #2 isn't met. If it was, he'd have extensive sourcing an not get deleted this many times, to be blunt. Oaktree b (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Per WP:NBASIC People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple (which means more than 1) published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Which i don't see how a newspaper from Spain can be intellectually connected to an Afrikaans news paper in Cape Town.

I also found the 2 articles on Google News which is the Daily Voice and Press Info articles, that should pass the multiple coverage required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UncleCedric (talk • contribs) 17:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys think this is a game? Excluding reviewers, you two Frankymulls and UncleCedric are the only people who worked on the article and it's amazing how the latter last edited on 12 September and came back today for this AfD which I believe they did not get a notification from, a checkuser might be needed here. This source is user written and cited in the article. Please see the above mentioned AfDs to see why the subject fails WP:N and why they are salted. dxneo (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I too find it very curious that both Frankmulls and UncleCedric has not edited more than a month and suddenly reappeared when this article came up for deletion. That said, I don't think a checkuser would be illuminating. We do need to assume good faith, but that doesn't mean we shut our eyes and ears. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and above, there's a history of sockpuppetry and salt. Cited sources are not reliable and not enough to pass WP:GNG. Qaqaamba (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no reliable sources and the apparent 15 times this page has been salted under different titles is enough to tell me that they're clearly still not notable. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 19:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT I feel like an article that has been salted in 15 different namespaces probably should be speedily deleted. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to EMD F40PH#History. Daniel (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EMD F40PHR

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

Pointless Article, was brought back after over a decade of being gone. The F40PHR is almost identical to the regular F40PH and has no reason to have an independent article. BigSneeze444 (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to EMD SDP40F: It's a rebuild of that type of locomotive, could easily be covered there, with a redirect so people looking for info on the type get pointed in the right direction. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The F40PHR is very different from the SDP40F, if it gets redirected anywhere. It should be redirected to the F40PH page. BigSneeze444 (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to EMD F40PH#History. This model is already covered in detail there; there is no need for a separate article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to EMD F40PH#History. This is a needless duplication of information. TarnishedPath^talk 01:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above.Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to F40PH. This never should have been created, and shows yet again why this editor should have been blocked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Mirabito Range. Daniel (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red Rock Peak

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

I'm not really sure if this is notable, I can't really find any reliable sources about it other than the public domain material it was taken from. Most results on Google are for other mountains also named similarly. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 16:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 16:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mirabito Range per WP:GEONATURAL - that article should be developed instead. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, I should have done my due diligence to find a suitable target before nominating. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 17:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have a word with Aymatth2 who is quietly busy in Antarctica with the names dumps articles, too. Uncle G (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I much prefer redirecting to a section in a parent article. It takes a lot less effort than an AfD discussion, and users can at least find the basic data even if there is nothing else. See David Range#Features. A lot of the sections here, at present with {{main}} links to stubs, will end up as the targets from stubs converted to redirects. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I pumped up Mirabito Range mechanically by adding a section for each entry in Geographic Names of the Antarctic that mentions the range. Probably the other three peaks could also be quietly redirected to the range article, assuming searches do not turn up significant new information about them. The range article could obviously use much more detail about geology, glaciology, botany etc. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above.Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. Daniel (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dean G. Popps

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

After seeing the consensus build on the Afd of the current United States Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, it appears clear that the position does not confer notability on its own. There's nothing else other than routine announcements of appointments to boards and one article he wrote.[13] Clarityfiend (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for essentially the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce D. Jette

AfDs for this article:

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

After seeing the consensus of the Afd for Jette's successor as United States Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, this position does not confer notability by itself. Independent sources are just not there. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I didn't bundle this guy with the three others nominated above because this is his second Afd. I didn't find the 2018 keep verdict particularly convincing. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What independent sources are there about him rather than events in which he may have played a part? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - [14][15][16] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Passing mention, and two routine non-independent announcements, one by the US Army (duh) and one by the government about his appointment. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sohom (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG due to lack of independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs) 2023-12-12T17:34:14 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last AFD discussion was convincing when one reads right to the bottom and then follows-up on what MelanieN pointed out five years ago.
As explained there, this started off as undeclared paid editing by Biografix (talk · contribs). Then Dszarek1234 (talk · contribs) and 141.116.106.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (an IP address from the Office of the Secretary of Defense) stepped in saying "As the Digital Media Analyst with ASA(ALT), I've been tasked by the Director of External Communications to scrub Dr. Jette's wiki page and use his official Department of Defense bio.".
Then after the first AFD discussion in 2018 a single-purpose account Acquisition1954 (talk · contribs) and 141.116.250.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 141.116.107.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 141.116.54.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (more OSD IP addresses) got at the article in 2019 and filled it with all sorts of unverifiable stuff like what the innermost thoughts of the article subject, coincidentally who was born in 1954 and worked in acquisition, were at age 5.
We should get rid of this entire edit history.
There have been no contributions apart from the usual mechanical fiddlings for categories and whatnot by anyone else. There's no writing here that hasn't either had or outright declared a conflict of interest, and there has been at least one direct statement of intent to violate our fundamental NPOV and verifiability content policies (which latter the article now hugely does — at least the undeclared paid editor gave a pretense of adhering to the verifiability policy, but the "tasked" people and the people with the coincidental usernames and Pentagon IP addresses haven't even bothered at all to tell readers how they can check, say, what this person did as a football mascot in the early 1970s) by the people who wrote this content.
Uncle G (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dermot McGlinchey

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

Currently sourced only to a WP:SPS, but we should "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." The subject appears to fail WP:GNG; I conducted a web search, and reviewed matches on newspapers.com, and did not find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cue sports, and Northern Ireland. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined toward keeping or at least draftifying, since he's a national (N.Ir.) champion, and national champions usually turn out to be notable. The problem for us is that material on snooker from this far back is usually on paper, so it's going to take research into newspaper archives and print snooker magazines and the like. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish: I can't get to NewsBank because of the British Library's ongoing IT problems, but apart from newspapers.com as mentioned above, I also checked the British Newspaper Archive, which has numerous passing mentions but no significant coverage as far as I could find. For 1991, the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association opened membership to anyone who paid a fee. The November 1990 Snooker Scene reported that there were 443 new snooker professionals, including McGlinchey; in a monthly magazine with only around 32 pages, obviously there was not going to be room to provide in-depth coverage of all of the new intake alongside all of the other snooker and billiards news and reports. Cue World had already been merged into Snooker Scene by that point, and from the issues of Pot Black I have from around that time, it seems unlikely that they would have given any more coverage than Snooker Scene, despite their higher page count. In my opinion, it would be very unlikely that a player who never reached the top 100 in the rankings would get significant coverage in the snooker press after 1990, unless there was something apart from their results to report on. The Snooker Scene coverage of McGlinchey's 2006 national amateur title (in the July 2006 issue) would perhaps scrape throught as one suitable source, although it's mostly quotes from him. The magazine's report on his 2010 win (in the July 2010 issue) is two short paragaphs of very routine coverage. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:CUENOT In the case of large countries, if the player has won a major regional championship (e.g. at the state level in the US; or the England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland level in the UK), they may also qualify and Professional players should have their own articles if they have won an international or national championship organized by a major organization in the sport (i.e. local leagues emphatically do not qualify), or are highly ranked in their sport. I am not sure if this is enough.

Hi, Jeraxmoira, please note that WP:CUENOT mentions in its introduction that it "should not be relied upon in the article deletion process, which is subject to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not wikiproject recommendations." If you know of any reliable sources that cover McGlinchey, let me know. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could find nothing online apart from trivial mentions. Jeraxmoira (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find nothing notable about this player, who seems never to have got past the last 64 of any professional event or accomplished anything else of note during his brief stints on the professional tour. Simply winning the (amateur) Northern Irish Championship does not in itself make him notable. Many of the other winners and runners-up do not have Wikipedia entries either -- and those that do, like Mark Allen and Jordan Brown, are notable for other reasons. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of any SIGCOV in IRS, we have no evidence this individual is notable. CUENOT is an essay, not a notability guideline, and holds no sway at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Here are some narrowed Google News hits [17]; I have not pored over the few results yet to see if they're helpful. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Degrees of Separation (video game)

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

The only reliable independent (non-interview) sources I could find were a Nintendo World Report review and some brief PC Gamer articles. QuietCicada - Talk 14:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada - Talk 14:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, We have multiple sources, at least one of which is reliable, significant coverage, and independent. Therefore this meets WP:GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It got a Nintendo World Report review, and a basic Metacritic check shows a review from Vandal, a reliable source. Mobygames lists way more reviews, including Meristation. Therefore, it's notable beyond a shadow of a doubt. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in addition to what is listed above, there is a review by The Games Machine (Italy) linked at Metacritic. --Mika1h (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of CSI: Miami characters#Notable cast members. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calleigh Duquesne

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

Sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of CSI: Miami characters#Notable cast members. Spinixster (chat!) 14:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 14:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the relevant list of characters. Pure plot summary, no independent analysis of significance, reception, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BEFORE didn't bring up any reliable analysis or reception. Seems like an unlikely search term, but redirects are cheap if someone insists. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. A further seven days since my (final) relist and HighKing's contribution remains unresponded to and unrefuted. On that basis, that is the premier contribution to this debate and has sufficient support (nominator plus one other), and therefore consensus exists to delete. Daniel (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manhasset Specialty Company

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

Ref #1 seems to be unrelated. Ref #2 is just primary. No other WP:42 sources found in WP:BEFORE, thus NN. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Music. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Agreed with nom, the first source is completely irrelevant and the second is the company itself. No secondary coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Striking my delete and changing it to a keep based on the sources found below. I don't agree that all of these are significant coverage but at least a couple are. Someone should now improve the article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a company nearly everyone in the music industry knows and has used products of (and I say that with very little hyperbole). Unfortunately, being a music stand manufacturer will not net a lot of coverage. There is some coverage in trade magazines (since it is a surprisingly large company) and local news, but I honestly do not know how far they will go:
Hopefully this is enough for, what I think is, an important company. Why? I Ask (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NCORP. Any reliable, significant coverage found is primarily about the company's music stand - not the company itself. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If their product is notable, then the company is at least deserving of a mention. But it would be odd to have the article focused on the music stand and not the broader topic of the company and its history. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If their product is notable, then there will be sufficient sources to write an article about the product. Notability of a product doesn't transfer to notability of the company - see WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the company is synonymous with the product. It's all they make. That's why WP:NCORP says: In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source 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. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While a consensus just about exists here to delete based on strength of argument relative to policy, I want to give the two editors !voting 'keep' (and anyone else so interested) a chance to reply to HighKing's statement, which has come very late in the piece.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned above by users. Skt34 (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC) sock strike. Daniel (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Šijak

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

I can't find any significant coverage online. Article was also created by the subject. There perhaps could be some Serbian sources I missed, but for now it doesn't seem like the subject passes general or artist-specific notability guidelines. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Arts, Film, and Serbia. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oppose/keep Sijak ivan (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to have been involved in a few projects [18] with video game companies, but nothing I'd use to build an article. We could revisit if there are sources in his native language, but I can't find any. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, here are few links that can relate article to my biography.

http://www.arte.rs/sr/aktuelno/ivan_sijak_gray_matter-11572/1/1/

https://submarinechannel.com/profiles/new-pretty-cool-people-interview-ivan-sijak/

https://fdu.bg.ac.rs/sr-lat/fakultet/nastavno-osoblje/ivan-sijak-70\

https://www.kcb.org.rs/arhiva_vesti/ivan-sijak-gray-matter-video-instalacije/

Kind regards 87.116.183.29 (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, here are few links that can relate article to my biography.

http://www.arte.rs/sr/aktuelno/ivan_sijak_gray_matter-11572/1/1/

https://submarinechannel.com/profiles/new-pretty-cool-people-interview-ivan-sijak/

https://fdu.bg.ac.rs/sr-lat/fakultet/nastavno-osoblje/ivan-sijak-70\

https://www.kcb.org.rs/arhiva_vesti/ivan-sijak-gray-matter-video-instalacije/

https://www.izlazak.com/vizuelna-umetnost/22217-ivan-sijak-izlozba-fotografija-metropolis-revisited-1994 87.116.183.29 (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant coverage from reliable sources, mentions which I found° are surface-level or are from member of projects.Antimargi (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not finding significant coverage from reliable sources. Existing sources in the article failed verification.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Article, above and BEFORE showed nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 14:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colditz (audio drama)

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

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

Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Radio. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. And, not that it's been suggested by the nom, but we don't need to delete the original article in article history. ~Kvng (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Because this will affect 11 articles, relisting for a clearer consensus (rather than closing with a 'soft' redirect).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the above. Would need much better sourcing (such as non-trivial editorial reviews) to be acceptable as stand-alone articles. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Editors interested in launching an appropriate RFC or Merging this article know where they should go next. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor planets: 624001–625000

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

"Minor planets" are rocks of often less than a kilometre in diametre, of which there is a nearly endless supply, almost none of them (of these higher numbered, smaller ones) in any way notable. We can continue creating pages for them, but why? It's a WP:NOTSTATS violation, a reposting of database entries. I don't know where the cutoff should be (first 100,000? first 500,000?), but we can start by discussing if this one (and by definition future even higher numbered ones) should exist or not. Fram (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Fram (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Do we have any independent sources writing about any significant number of these bodies, other than JPL and the IAU? Those might not actually be independent; they research and name them! This is pure data, what I'd imagine Wikidata should be designed for. Which lists exactly should be deleted is a difficult question, but it's a lot of them, and this one for sure. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep lists of these are notable, but the lists are so big that we have to break them up here. The idea that each object is not notable, but the list of them is notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- And why is the list notable? Fram (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, the NASA source is credible and reliable. Though more sources would be helpful. Agreed that the individual planets, minor ones, do not merit their own pages, but as a list this would appear to pass basic notability test. As is, i would like to see some more sources though. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep

These lists serve as a backbone to WP:Astronomy's minor-planets edifice, and only contain the most superficial details regarding each MP; the vast majority of statistics are not included. Since most of these bodies won't become articles, these lists serve as their default link location, a landing page, so that readers may get a basic idea of what a particular MP is (why is it named the way is it? where is its orbit in the solar system - near Earth, the main belt, near Jupiter, past Neptune? how big is it? is it a member of one of the asteroid groups, or perhaps even an asteroid family?). Links are included to various databases for much more detailed information.
Per WP:NASTRO#Inclusion in another article or list / WP:NASTRO#Dealing with minor planets. Over the years, many non-notable MPs have been #R'd to these lists. The presence of these lists helps lessen the growth of non-notable MPs, either by dissuading article creation directly, or by easily allowing someone to cite WP:NASTRO to turn the non-notable MP article into an #R.

~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speak of the devil ~ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/155142 Tenagra. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 23:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The given example that is currently running for deletion is cited to the exact same two sources as the lists. I would support the deletion of both. We're an encyclopedia, not a directory of minor planets. JPL and the IAU are apparently doing that job. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a gazeteer though. So we should have lists of places even if they are located elsewhere in the Solar System. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh WP:GAZETTEER is a good argument, but easily opposed by WP:NOTGAZETTEER. We wouldn't have lists on every post office in a province or every hill in a city (exceptions occur because of notability guidelines). Lots of data on every [X] in [Y] is compiled by agencies, but not necessarily fitting within our project. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is a bigger issue than just the one list nominated. There ought to be a discussion about whether Wikipedia is the correct place to operate/mirror a database of space objects, but AfD is not the right forum. Nevertheless, surely one list of minor planets is enough for one encyclopaedia. Why do we have a second, near-identical structure commencing at Meanings of minor-planet names and again branching into hundreds of tabulated lists? This is mad duplication. Surely at the very least these two structures could be merged? Elemimele (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Merge with Meanings of minor-planet names- per Elemimele 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Elemimele that this is a bigger discussion that needs to happen outside of AfD. —siro χ o 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above, have the larger debate on the subject matter elsewhere. I particularly agree with the comments above by Tom.Reding. Wikipedia needs more of this scientific knowledge, not less. — Maile (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, and maybe open up an RfC at some point. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 00:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ in the absence of a policy or guideline-backed argument to keep the article. ✗plicit 03:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Zaouatene volcanic field

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

I am not sure that this meets WP:GNG inclusion criteria. Liégeois mentions it only in a table with relatively few data. GVP removed their entry; when I emailed them for an explanation they said that there is no indication of volcanic rocks in the area and pointed out how sparse the mention on Liégeois is. This source has only a few data, too, with no detailed description. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the experts who decide whether this is a volcanic field have decided that they were mistaken and that there is no such field, surely Wikipedia should follow suit? Special:Diff/1186683457 boggles the mind. The clear rationale seems to be that the article is false and not supported by the experts any more. That is unverifiability, and a basic reason for deletion that has been in deletion policy since 2003. Furthermore: As I have said elsewhere I think the answer to A. B.'s question is that the NERC‐BGS will follow suit soon enough, since its database, it claims^[1], is a join on the Smithsonian's; and soon Smithsonian record #225002 will be there no more. It all depends from when it imports and how it handles records that get deleted and no longer join to its own data. Uncle G (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the databases that constitute our cited sources are deleting it, so should WP. Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Ebmeier et al. 2018.

Ebmeier, S.K.; Andrews, B. J.; Araya, M.C.; Arnold, D. W. D.; Biggs, J.; Cooper, C.; Cottrell, E.; Furtney, M.; Hickey, J.; Jay, J.; Lloyd, R.; Parker, A. L.; Pritchard, M. E.; Robertson, E.; Venzke, E.; Williamson, J. L. (2018-02-06). "Synthesis of global satellite observations of magmatic and volcanic deformation: implications for volcano monitoring & the lateral extent of magmatic domains". Journal of Applied Volcanology. 7 (2). doi:10.1186/s13617-018-0071-3.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, contact me or WP:REFUND Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ettore Casadei

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

Footballer with zero professional appearances (all his career has been at amateur level in Italy and the US), and the older brother of Italian youth international Cesare Casadei. All the sources I could find, apart from transfer reports, stats reports and non-independent sources from the clubs he played for at the time, are about him being the boyfriend of some minor starlet in 2021 [19] and little more [20] , none of which are either independent enough (including article sources) or covering the subject in thorough detail to be defined as WP:GNG. Angelo (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Angelo (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Italy and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Player with an ongoing career, off the back of a good season in the United States at college level and the potential to continue his career there. Has a decent amount of coverage, especially for the level he's played at, and this interview, and especially this one are independent and decently in-depth. At worst draftify. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first one you've cited is barely one paragraph long... The second isn't much longer. Interviews don't count towards notability as they are primary sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having the "potential" to continue his career indicates he's not at notability, but perhaps in the future. TOOSOON applies. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to other users: the user above is the author of the article. That said, the sources you came up with are nowhere close to WP:SIGCOV (they are either non-independent, or are not secondary sources). Angelo (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is literally a Q&A interview, those never count towards notability. JoelleJay (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Match reports from Old Dominion University I find, some limited coverage in Italian media. TOOSOON and should be !deleted for lack of extensive sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all forementioned reasons above. Lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.-- 12:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Tumbuka Arch (talk)

Delete. Zero independent sources to support GNG.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ due to lack of participation in this discussion. No prejudice towards an immediate renomination. Daniel (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Math house

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 10:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Biology, Mathematics, Computing, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://search.brave.com/goggles?q=%22isfahan+mathematics+house%22&source=web&q=%22isfahan+mathematics+house%22 Baratiiman (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - our colleague above unhelpfully provided a search engine result, however it did actually provide a source to discuss. This is a a conference presentation which was then published as an academic proceeding, and appears to be on topic. There appears to be another published paper that cites it, but I have not been able to establish the reliability of that journal. I see other whispers, it seems like there may be other sources (including non-English ones) if we dig a bit deeper. JMWt (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment, no opinion on the notability (at most borderline, it looks), but it should be moved to Isfahan Mathematics House or similar should it be kept. - Nabla (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu Dental College

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

Fails NSCHOOL as a for-profit school. No secondary sources with significant coverage available. Fermiboson (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Science, Medicine, and India. Fermiboson (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any independent coverage of this. Cortador (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also cannot find any independent significant coverage. Just review sites. Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"DONT Delete" I believe that this page meets the notability guidelines for educational institutions,--Kasyap (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Clearly a WP:SNOWBALL closure. I see no reason to continue this discussion further. (non-admin closure) Scorpions1325 (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tatjana Đekanović

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

not notable Atakhanli (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Atakhanli (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Bosnia and Herzegovina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. UtherSRG (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Has a Bosnian speaker conducted a BEFORE search for sources (I'm not seeing one on the talk page)? If not this nomination is premature, you can't make a good faith declaration that it isn't notable unless BEFORE has been conducted. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: looking at the other language Wikis which cover her has suggested a couple more sources, which with the help of Google translate have allowed expansion of the article. PamD 17:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG with expansion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following the work done by PamD and ForsythiaJo in expanding and sourcing this article, which has shown notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the coverage which has been added to the page is enough to get us over the GNG line. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ditto what DaniloDaysOfOurLives stated. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY/WP:BEFORE. The coverage already in the article at the time of nomination did not demonstrate notability, but that has never been the correct standard to apply. Now we have not only the same notability we had before (because notability is not a function of the current state of the article) but a clear demonstration of that notability within our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously notable.--Ipigott (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability within the article is clearly stated.Kaybeesquared (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability is demonstrated by existing sources. Rublamb (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per all forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eheim

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

No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:ORGCRIT DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, and Germany. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goalball at the 2017 ASEAN Para Games

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

Just a results listing and a list of non notable athletes. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Asia. LibStar (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wales Centre for Health

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

This short-lived agency only existed for four years (2005-2009). No sources are cited other than the laws that governed it. This article fails WP:ORGSIG since there is no outside coverage of it. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, United Kingdom, and Wales. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Institutions established by statute are generally notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:INHERITED, unless there is a policy related to agencies such as this. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INHERITED clearly does not apply here. Inherited from what? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something is not inherently notable because of something else. "Institutions established by statute are generally notable" would be a claim of inherit notability. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're referring to inherent notability, not inherited notability! Different things. To reiterate, in general we have kept organisations, institutions and departments created by statute. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for mixing up the essay and policy. To clarify, I'm not advocating for deletion, I haven't done any research yet. However, as of yet, I agree with the nom that Wikipedia:ORGSIG has not been passed. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Delete- The only 2 references listed are from the same website, one of which is about a health act & not the centre specificaly, neither of the two refs provide significant coverage of the centre. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've been watching this since the nom. and hoping someone else would find something, but as it is on the second relist, I've taken a fuller look. I am unimpressed by an argument that says "are generally notable." If this is notable, there will be sources. If there are no sources, it is unclear how any encyclopaedic page can be written. The nom specifically cites WP:ORGSIG which says No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. So is this notable? I can't find sources talking about it. There is a touch more about the Welsh Health Common Services Authority which also has no page (not the same thing). There was a Welsh Centre for Rural Health and an institute for Health Informatics that were funded by Welsh Government but independent. There were a whole plethora of Welsh Health organisations over the years, all of which would be scraping the barrel to find their way beyond permastub status as pages. What is missing, I think, is some kind of page looking at the healthcare landscape in Wales. We have NHS Wales but that is largely the current situation. The Wales Centre for Health could be mentioned in an as yet unwritten page looking at the historical situation, but there is not notability for a page in its own right. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No prejudice to an immediate renomination to consider new sourcing presented here. Daniel (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Tracey

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

None of the information in the article is corroborated by the source, the subject fails WP:GNG DirtyHarry991 (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and New Zealand. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - [21] is all I can find from a search and it does not mention the subject. Possible hoax? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly not a hoax; multiple national titles and long racing career, as covered in The Press newspaper between 1978 and 1988 at PapersPast. The Press is the only NZ newspaper currently with full online coverage from this period. Given that Tracey was from Auckland, and The Press is a Christchurch newspaper, it is safe to assume that there would be even fuller and more extensive coverage in the New Zealand Herald and Auckland Star newspapers during that period. Paora (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was hoping to find more... [22] is a mention by another individual. Was hoping Trove from Australia's national library would have something [23], they don't; I wonder if he's too modern to be in there. Oaktree b (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the Wikipedia Library link there isn't much to be found. Oaktree b (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Did you look at the PapersPast search results? Paora (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First one's the best, rest are trivial mentions, still not enough to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Tracey was inducted into the New Zealand Speedway Hall of Fame in 2012 [24]. Article here on Tracey from Speedway Racing, November 1984. Paora (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Here's an article profiling Tracey in the Indianapolis Star of 25 September 1983. Paora (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've struck my vote, now Neutral. The IndyStar article is good. The other sourcing isn't enough for me to !vote keep but I recognize the WP:POTENTIAL for further offline articles to exist for a subject whose activities far predated mass use of the internet. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KD Subdivision

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish how it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Kentucky, and Tennessee. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A 161-mile railway line will pass as a geographic feature; sourcing the history shouldn't be a problem. I'll see what I can do to make the article more presentable. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I'd consider rail lines to almost always be notable, I question whether the CSX subdivision is the notable topic. Subdivisions are things made up by someone at CSX headquarters in Jacksonville, and do not necessarily correlate to lines as a whole, or to notable topics. This article is one of many mass-produced by an editor who decided every single CSX subdivision should have an article, irrespective of sourcing, notability, or if it even made sense to do so. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point, although in this case the "KD" name goes back to the L&N in the 1970s: [25]. Mackensen (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participation here from those editors who work on railroad articles or are knowledgeable about them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find primary sources briefly talking about the rail line. What's used now for sourcing in the article is trivial. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b I don't think that's a fair description of Kincaid Herr's book. Mackensen (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about merging this and other CSX subdivisions to "List of CSX Transportation lines"? Some of this data is already included in the list article. We could expand the list by one column for a capsule history of each subdivision. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that's inappropriate for a list article, especially one that's 36 KB already. These lines have their own history and are geographically distinct. Mackensen (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has been improved. The CSX subdivisions, divisions, and regions need a much deeper dive than just this AfD. gidonb (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still no evidence of significant coverage in multiple sources. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ahwahnechee#Paiute Ahwahnechee place names. Thanks for the clarification on target articles. Editors interested in Merging any information know where they can find it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hokokwito, California

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

Mass-created article by Carlossuarez46.

Cites only GNIS, which is unreliable and does not satisfy the requirement for legal recognition per WP:GNIS. Populated places without legal recognition need to pass WP:GNG, however there is no evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources here.

In my WP:BEFORE I searched Newspapers.com for Hokokwito, Hococwedoc, and Hok-ok-wi-dok but drew a blank. I also searched Google Books which found a single one-sentence mention that appears to originate in the 1870's with work by Stephen Powers. In full it reads:

"Hok-ok'-wi-dok, which stood very near where Hutchings Hotel now stands, opposite Yosemite Fall"

This single-sentence, 16-word mention, is not significant coverage. Whilst other books include exactly the same description copied from the Powers one, this copying also does not amount to significant coverage. A search on the Internet Archive also only turned up copies of this single-sentence description from Powers.

A redirect to Yosemite Valley, California would be acceptable as an ATD. ~~We do not have an article specifically about Yosemite Village, in which Hutchings Hotel was apparently located.~~(apparently I just wasn't looking in the right place). FOARP (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. FOARP (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yosemite Village Historic District ☺ It even has the Hutchings, although this would be an odd-seeming redirect. Uncle G (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The GNIS record coming up blank (sic!) doesn't help. But I found this under Awani in Henshaw 1912, p. 118 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHenshaw1912 (help), as a simple listing of "9 villages", which is probably the best indicator of where we should have it, given that our article has a "Dwellings" section. Uncle G (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- https://books.google.nl/books?id=IGzgCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=hokokwito+miwok&source=bl&ots=R83e0xWJYR&sig=ACfU3U02jNaBjfCV8Sq0z5t-4iP-w16qEA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwii1p3mxcGCAxWIg_0HHRbbBwM4FBDoAXoECAMQAw#v=onepage&q=hokokwito%20miwok&f=false Djflem (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - That cites Henshaw 1912, p. 118 as its source at the bottom of the article, except sans the author and the specific page number. ☺ And that bare URL doesn't work outside of The Netherlands. Uncle G (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

references

Henshaw, Henry W. (1912). "Awani". In Hodge, Frederick Webb (ed.). Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico. Bulletin. Vol. 30. Smithsonian Institution. Bureau of American Ethnology. (Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico at the Internet Archive)

I'm OK with a redirect to Ahwahnechee#Paiute_Ahwahnechee_place_names. FOARP (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ahwahnechee#Paiute Ahwahnechee place names per above discussion jengod (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Would need to be listed there. Djflem (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ahwahnechee listing all of the nine villages mentioned in references either in place names, new subsection, or as prose in text. Do same with Sakaya, California. Djflem (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm stuck with Kentucky at the moment, but I could give it a go. Uncle G (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I did the additional three villages that were terrible GNIS mess substubs as well. Uncle G (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Djflem; site is documented and might be of interest to anyone researching historical sites, but probably not enough information for an article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting just because there are several different Redirect/Merge target articles mentioned. We need to narrow that down to one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really? FOARP, Jengod, Djflem, and I have all pointed to the same article. Where's the other one? Uncle G (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uncle G The two targets are:Yosemite Valley, California & Ahwahnechee#Paiute Ahwahnechee place names 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - No they aren't. Read what FOARP wrote later in the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - FOARP said he was ok with the other redirect, but the option still stands for their original suggestion. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - FOARP was the one who suggested that redirect in the first place, in light of Henshaw 1912, p. 118. You are defending a misreading of everyone quite clearly already agreeing with FOARP a fortnight ago. Uncle G (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry if I was unclear - both redirects are fine but Ahwahnechee#Paiute Ahwahnechee place names is my preference. FOARP (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ahwahnechee#Paiute Ahwahnechee place names per the above discussion. It's true, other articles were mentioned earlier in the thread, but having now seen the options I agree with where the general consensus has landed. Cheers. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also...I just don't see that there is information to "merge" to the redirect target, either, since there is barely any information there and we're treating GNIS as a deprecated source. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Tânia Tomé. ✗plicit 06:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queentanisha

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

BLP, Duplicates subject Tânia Tomé. Unneeded CFORK. No sourcing shows the different name is notable for a standalone article. Suggest redirect to Tânia Tomé#Music and writing where the subject already exists. // Timothy :: talk 05:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Africa, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tânia Tomé: no reason to have two articles on one person. Use whichever title has the better notability. PamD 09:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tânia Tomé: No need to have this useless fork. Owen× ☎ 11:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tânia Tomé per the content fork rules. The merge should be easy due to the duplicated prose. Her recent music under the name Queentanisha is one segment of her career and is less notable than the accomplishments under her real name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tânia Tomé, seems to be the COMMONNAME, the pseudonym gets a lot of hits but the legal name is used across RS. —siro χ o 19:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tânia Tomé per nomination. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 19:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Kitchens

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable, but this person never reached the top post of ambassador/high commissioner. Coverage is routine like of her speaking to the media on behalf of the UK Government. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Kenya, Tanzania, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources has not been demonstrated. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lemogang Maswena

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Botswana-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In a quick search there is some coverage about the athlete in the local media in Botswana. I vote to keep, but it's on the threshold of WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added additional sources in the article Svartner (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kudos to Svartner for the extra sources! gidonb (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Transactional announcements on one WordPress-hosted news outlet do not demonstrate GNG, which requires multiple pieces of SIGCOV in IRS.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I could have called this N/C and probably been within admin discretion, but what put me closer to keep is that we have reasonable belief that the Weldon chair is tied with the Dean position. This is not THEREMUSTBESOURCES as StarryGrandma has provided reasonable evidence of that being true in the very recent past, and non one has been able to ID a change rendering it no longer true. If sources don't eventuate, this can be revisited down the line. Star Mississippi 01:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Harding (professor)

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

This person fails the notability guidelines ~~for biographies, namely:~~

~~They do not demonstrate a lasting contribution to their field as per WP:ANYBIO~~

~~This alone qualifies the article for notability deletion, but~~ in several other guidelines, such as WP:SIGCOV and having and independent source it just barely squeaks by. Clearly and article that should be deleted. AriTheHorse 04:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AriTheHorse 04:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Weldon Professorship she currently holds qualifies as a "named chair appointment" under WP:Notability (academics), which shows her notability under that Wikipedia policy. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree but the article still has several notability issues which I just don't see as possible to solve... I've edited my original statement to reflect that. AriTheHorse 04:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, England, Canada, Connecticut, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, though you've just agreed the article qualifies under WP:Notability (academics), so I would argue that other policies don't need to apply. We'll see what other say. Cheers! Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Disagree: The "General" in "general notability guideline" indicates that it applies to every article. AriTheHorse 04:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that it can apply to any subject matter; but it doesn't say that it supersedes all other notability policies. Again, happy to hear what others have the say :) Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. XOR'easter (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was not able to verify the named professorship to my satisfaction: it is on the subject's linkedin, and on the Interlochen biography (likely provided by the subject with minimal oversight), but nowhere on Dalhousie's webpages. The citation record doesn't look like a slam dunk for WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:NACADEMIC #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But if it doesnt meet any other notability criteria, such as that it cannot be independently verified that she actually meets WP:NACADEMIC, is she really notable? AriTheHorse 12:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to see it, is it still a tree? Yes. We do not require our topics to meet all other notability guidelines. We do not require articles on sportspeople to meet WP:NPOL. We do not require articles on musicians to meet WP:NATHLETE. And similarly, we do not require articles on professors to meet notability standards for other topics. WP:NPROF explicitly states that non-independent but reliable sources (such as official publications or web sites of the employer) may be used to verify that the person passes criterion #5. As someone who passes a Wikipedia notability criterion, they are automatically ipso facto notable. The fact that they do not pass a different criterion based on publicity rather than professional recognition is unimportant, just as the fact that most celebrities are not given named professorships is unimportant. Keep, bordering on WP:SK3 speedy keep, no valid nomination rationale given. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein I believe the point that @AriTheHorse is making, or trying to make, is that there is no reliable source presented for the named professorship whether independent or primary. I.e. the only citation for the named professorship is not an "official publication or web site of the employer" but rather what looks like a user generated bio for Harding's role as a trustee for an unrelated charity [26]. I have tried the employer Dalhousies website under several searches - and same as Russ Woodroofe above I am unable to verify the named professorship. Also agreed - citation record does not look great from what I can find. Delete [though please ping me if a WP:RS is presented and happy to change]. ResonantDis_tortion 19:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. Thank you. AriTheHorse 00:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harding is the new dean of the law school at Dalhousie and their public relations department has yet to catch up and create press releases with her full title or a faculty web page. Refreshing that their PR group is not as agressive as those of US universities, but it will have a university link soon enough. The full appointment is both as Dean and Weldon Professor. See these items for the previous deans for evidence:

Kim Brooks, Dean and Weldon Professor of Law, Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie. - 2013 press release
Camille Cameron, Dean, Weldon Professor of Law at the Schulich School of Law - 2017 anouncement
Phillip Saunders, Dean of Law and Weldon Professor of Law, 2005-2010 - in pdf here

StarryGrandma (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

StarryGrandma, so the Weldon Professorship is tied to the Dean position? I don't think this is the kind of named professorship intended by WP:NPROF C5! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It sounds like there is an absence of reliable sources establishing academic notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the named professorship is tied to the top leadership position, does not make it NOT a named professorship. I mean, you get hired as both, instead of hired as just a named professor, what is your point here? Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume, also, that when the named professorship is added to her university biography (by all the accounts above) she will suddenly become notable ... but isn't yet ... seems a bit intransigent as no one has said that a Weldon Professor is not notable except for one person who believes a Dean can't be a professor too for some reason. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. WP:NPROF C5 is the subcriterion that requires the most attention, as named chairs have proliferated. I agree that the Weldon chair appears to be tied to the dean position, and I do not think that a chair granted for holding an administrative office is the kind of distinguished professorship discussed in the subcriterion, especially when the administrative office is not otherwise a pass of NPROF. However, when I looked more carefully at the citation record, I am seeing several highly cited papers, in what I understand to be a low to mid citation field: Justifying Repatriation of Native American Cultural Property, Value, Obligation and Cultural Heritage, and Comparative Reasoning and Judicial Review. The name is common enough that searching is a little difficult: "Sarah Harding chicago" was useful. I think it is enough for WP:NPROF C1, which is what WP:NPROF C5 is supposed to be a shortcut for anyway. "Weak" because the the citation rates drop off quickly after that. I agree that the nomination was ill-formed, not considering the most relevant notability standard. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I agree that the professorship is probably tied to being dean, but agree that this is a named professorship nonetheless. While I don't think that all deans are necessarily notable, I do think being a dean is an indication of notability, and I think being dean of Schulich School of Law is a particularly good indication of notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until a WP:RS does indeed confirm the named professorship (!vote changed from delete). Because: the evidence provided by StarryGrandma does indicate it is likely the Weldon professorship is linked to being Dean, but none of those references explicitly state the two posts are indeed linked. Consequently, as this is a new appointment, it should not be long until it is confirmed and the article may then leave draft. ResonantDis_tortion 19:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Border (Lamar–McNeese)

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

This "rivalry" appears to be simply a marketing slogan and does not have significant, independent coverage with which to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, Louisiana, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Baseball, Basketball, and Softball. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are several media outlets that call this rivalry the Battle of the Border in their coverage. [27][28][29][30] Alvaldi (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Going over the sources, in the order in which they appear: Non-WP:INDY. SI bare stats that do not even mention a rivalry. Non-INDY. More bare stats. Non-INDY (and a mangled cite). Non-INDY × 3. Non-INDY and another mangled cite. Non-INDY × 10. I'm not going to read all the non-independent material from school publications to see if even they have any in-depth material on a "rivalry" as such, since none of it counts toward notability. A couple of sentences might be mergeable into the articles on the schools in the sections under their athletic departments, but since it doesn't seem like anyone declares a "rivalry" to exist other than people at the schools, even this doesn't really seem like encyclopedically pertinent claims, and the all the sourcing for it would be WP:PRIMARY. The bare fact that there's a local name, "Battle of the Border", for games (in various sports) between teams from these schools might be worth including at the school articles, since Wcquidditch's sources above show the term used in independent (local news) sources. But none of them refer to a rivalry, and they're not in sufficient depth about this as a long-term series of games to make it notable. The first is about a particular instance of "The three-game series" in one season of baseball, and is almost entirely focused on players and on team stats, not a series of events as such, or a rivalry. The second is about the outcome of a specific football game and how players performed in it. Ditto the third one but basketball. And the fourth but back to football. So, what we have here is simply proof that locals, including the students and the local press, refer to games between these schools as "Battle[s] of the Border". It's arguably pertinent to mention this in schools' athletic sections, but this is not an encyclopedia topic on its own. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In addition to the sources that Alvaldi has uncovered above, there is also this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The depth of coverage needs to be evaluated; other factors considered in determining whether a series may be considered a traditional rivalry include: (i) geographic proximity of the schools (in this case 60 miles apart on the interstate); (ii) the existence of a trophy or an official name for the series (present here); (iii) competitiveness of the series (McNeese has the edge but not a runaway); (iv) length and frequency of play (series has been played for > 70 years and with regularity); and (v) prominence of the programs (not present here - programs not particularly prominent). Cbl62 (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the first factor is relevant to whether this should have an article. It matters not one whit that it may have been played for 70 years or has a trophy. It matters whether anyone outwith its coiners has ever documented it, and its trophy and whatnot, in depth during those 70 years, which is only marginally the case from the aforegiven. Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - outwith, coiners and aforegiven: Brings to mind a zinger coined by old Bill Shakespeare: "Who knows himself a braggart, let him fear this, for it will come to pass that every braggart shall be found an ass." SIGCOV is the touchstone, and no one has said otherwise. That said, it is entirely appropriate (one might even say "snotor") in close cases to look at other real-world factors in determining whether or not a series of football games is worthy of a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the coverage is enough to warrant this staying.KatoKungLee (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with SMcCandlish's eval. Sources show that students and school boosters use the phrase and that local news covers local sports. A phrase being mentioned in routine local news does not meet GNG, no sources from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth found in BEFORE. // Timothy :: talk 02:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass GNG with given coverage, including articles providing direct significant coverage from at least seven different publications. Unlike what TimothyBlue seems to be asserting, locality of coverage has no bearing on whether coverage can count towards notability in these types of instances. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourcing provided by User:Ejgreen77 is the kind of WP:SIGCOV we need to establish a rivalry as notable. Cbl62 (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per the sources brought forth above in this AfD. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Subject meets the WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ejgreen77's new sources are:
- a 1966 newspaper article that devotes 5 sentences to the subject (before going off to concentrate on the subject of the individual players of two sports teams), and at least gives us some historical context, although wouldn't justify a whole article;
- a 1982 newspaper article that is a headline-only match, and spends all of its body talking about a single family with two sports players in it that have ended up in competition with each other;
- a 1979 newspaper article that is fairly substantial, analysing the rivalry itself for a major fraction of the piece, and has an amusing "I don't know that it can be classified as a great rivalry" quotation;
- a 2022 newspaper article that is a headline-only match, that is actually an after-match score report and doesn't discuss a battle or a rivalry at any point in its body, and is a prime example of research-by-search-engine-keyword-matching without reading the source;
- a 2022 newspaper article that spends its first 4 sentences on the subject, and is like the 1966 one, providing more stuff on the subject for its development in the 21st century, building it up, making this three not very big independent sources, with a huge gap in the history between 1979 and 2022; and
- a 1971 newspaper article that ironically explains why the 1982 article is a non-source, since it supports adding content saying that the 1982 situation is run of the mill and why it is run of the mill, which still leaves a huge gap in the history, but it's four small sources now.
Alvaldi's sources are all only phrase matches without content like Ejgreen77's first 2022 article, and one of them is that article, which overlap one would think people actually reading the sources proffered would have spotted. Even doing proper citations instead of bare URLs would have made this duplication easy to spot.
I could make a fair stub out of this, but it would have glaring holes in it that the phrase-only headline-only matching research doesn't fill in. Amusingly with regard an earlier comment in this discussion, the second 2022 newspaper article explains how this is not something that has gone on continuously for 70 years, because it explains that there was a gap when it didn't. We have 40 years missing, during which there could have been further gaps, for all that we know. Would that people were properly researching this, instead of phrase matching with search engines!
So that's a stub with probable scope for expansion, although we have no sources to show that the scope for expansion, to the missing decades, and to the other sports (the proffered sources all discussing one sport and not even the women's teams), is definitely there.
Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrika Björklund

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

WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The article literally just states that she's a person who exists, while completely failing to state what political offices she may have held -- but politicians are not all "inherently" notable just for existing, and are only presumed notable in certain specific major offices, so an article that completely elides what offices the person even held in the first place clearly doesn't cut it.
Additionally, the fact that there's no article about her at all on the Swedish Wikipedia doesn't bode well, since there's just no way that Swedish editors would completely overlook her if she were actually a holder of any NPOL-passing office.
In addition, two of the three footnotes here are just address directory entries, which are not reliable or WP:GNG-building sourcing, and the only one that comes from a real media outlet appears to suggest that she's just a local figure in a small town, which is a level at which we would need far, far more than just one GNG-worthy source to deem her notable enough.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this article from having to contain a lot more substance than this, and a lot more sourcing for it than just one media hit and a bunch of phone books. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Sweden. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, AFAIK this person has been elected at local (municipal and county) levels only, which doesn't suffice for NPOL, and the sources fall well short of GNG. I had a quick search and found a few secondary sources, but they only cover her in the context of her crossing the floor to a different party, so again not enough for GNG. There could be more if one digs deeper, but it's not particularly easy as the name is fairly common. If the author can produce more and better sources, then I'm prepared to reconsider my stance, but as it stands this seems non-notable. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NEXIST, passes the WP:GNG. A simple two minute Google search shows her switch from the Moderates to the Centre Party due to disagreements with the former's embrace of the Sweden Democrats' anti-migration politics received national media attention in 2022: Swedish Television (public broadcaster) Swedish Radio (public braodcaster). Feature profile in Nerikes Allehanda: [31]. Behind a paywall, but profile on her role in education policy: [32]. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:GNG per Goldsztajn's links. WP:OTHERLANGS should also be kept in mind, and the fact that there isn't an article in the Swedish Wikipedia yet is not relevant to determine notability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT regarding the party transfer, and the notion tat she has a "role in education policy" seems like a major exaggeration. Not every person who was the subject of a feature in a local or regional newspaper is Wikipedia material. I have access to the Swedish Mediearkivet, but on the basis provided here, it's not at all compelling to search for gems in newspapers. This looks like a regular person who is active in her community and doesn't like a political party. Geschichte (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have multiple, multi-year, sigcov RS, this satisfies the GNG. We may assess the quality, scope or reliabiliy of sources, but I'm not aware of any community consensus that allows us to criticise the editorial decision making of the reliable sources. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a point of interpretation how significant a given piece of coverage is. And my interpretation is, among others, that the significance is being overplayed regarding the education piece. Geschichte (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have four reliable soruces with SIGCOV in relation to the subject (two of which deal with one issue). An editor's opinion of the importance of the coverage (ie editorial decision making) is not relevant. The second Nerikes Allehanda is reporting on the subject's intentions with regard to education policy; whatever one's views on the contents, it's not our job to assess their importance. Even if you take away that piece, we still still satisfy BASIC/GNG. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are five reliable sources with SIGCOV in relation to the subject. Also per WP:GNG. Her work as CEO of SJ is highly notable. BabbaQ (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The claim of being the CEO of SJ is pathetic. The given source states that Ulrika Björklund is "the director of SJ Contact Center in Ånge". Not included in the CEO list, although SJ consists of several different parts. The Ulrika Björklund of SJ is not even the same person, it's a different person née Sahlin and born in Timrå! My opinion of delete stands until the misinformation is sorted out. Geschichte (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Maybe close as draftify? In that way, the editors who find gold in the aforementioned references can work this into the article, showing its actual importance beyond WP:NEXIST - and also to facilitate a necessary sorting out of things to avoid throwing other people named Ulrika Björklund into the mix. Geschichte (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: But more polishing needs to be done to it. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Maybe consider the possibility of draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Goldsztajn. More work clearly needs doing but I think this article meets GNG. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobic tropes

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

Unencyclopaedic topic. We don't make lists of possible views; the broader topic is covered at Islamophobia. Fermiboson (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Religion, and Islam. Fermiboson (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – we have similar articles on Antisemitic trope and Anti-LGBT rhetoric. The article is not exactly in ideal shape, but there's plenty to be expanded here. A quick search turns up a few pertinent articles:
- doi:10.1177/1461444816642169
- doi:10.1111/j.1467-8322.2011.00825.x
Also, Islamophobia is already near the upper size limit, so it makes sense to have a separate article for this topic. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ~~Islamophobia~~ Islamophobia in the media (thanks, Significa liberdade!). True, the target is already a long article, but this small, specific section is not a good one for branching. Owen× ☎ 11:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If merged and/or redirected, I might recommend Islamophobia in the media rather than Islamophobia more generally. However, as Maddy from Celeste has noted, we have similar articles for other defamatory tropes. I have also included a quick list of articles that discuss Islamophobic tropes on the article's talk page. If we don't merge/redirect, I might recommend draftifying. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Islamophobia in the media: This may be a notable topic, but this is far from it and WP:TNT is sorely needed for this one. As it stands this fails WP:LISTN due to a lack of definable criteria. No prejudice towards someome else recreating this at a later date. Let'srun (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick check suggest that this topic meets WP:GNG when you include such common synonyms as "myths" and "anti-muslim". There exists enough sources that the article could be expanded from its current state (which is not good, but quality is not a good argument for deletion). I also think it makes sense to have a separate article for this, like Antisemitic trope and Anti-LGBT rhetoric. Sjö (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ Keep per WP:BEFORE's criteria D4 -- I agree with the Keep !voters above that the article should exist, and the nomination seems very much in the category of WP:ZEAL (it came less than three hours after the initial creation). That said, this is not the article that needs to exist. At the moment, it is nothing more than a flat list of statements with no context or explanation, and there is no encyclopaedic treatment of the subject. Draftify will allow the editor to build it out and get assistance from others who might be willing to find Quality sources are out there. A casual glance at gScholar shows that the subject is widely discussed in academic literature [33], [34], [35]. A key term that editors may want to include is Orientalism, the precursor to Islamophobia. Also, there seems to be good secondary articles on such tropes in Buddhism ([36], [37], etc.)that could globalise the article. Cheers, ~~Last1in (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)~~ Last1in (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with draftifying; it is in mainspace that articles may develop. If we draftify, realistically, the only one who will know or care about the draft will be whoever created it. In mainspace, it will be more visible and thus will solicit improvements from a larger range of editors. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Per WP:BEFORE's D4, If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination (emphasis in original). I will change my !vote above. It does sorta raise the question of what Draftify is for, though. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article's talk page has a list of sources that may be used to expand the article.Sjö (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment Without comment on the rest of the arguments, I resent the implication that this is a WP:ZEAL nomination. The article as it stands then and now is highly unencyclopaedic, and it was not clear what type of sources could be used. (I would argue it is still not clear, because the scope of the article is poorly defined. Trope and rhetoric are different things, and there's also the "by whom" question.) This is a highly contentious topic, one in which it could be argued that an unencyclopaedic entry is worse than having no entry. Someone who actually bothers to make an improvement can make a new article if it is needed, and in the meantime, letting the article as it currently is stay up unchanged because someone can hypothetically change it for the better is irresponsible (note that having an imperfect article is not an argument for deletion, but TNT is). If the AfD does close as keep without any improvement, I will probably be TNT stubifying the article. After all, if this was clearly inside ARBPIA, it'd have been db-gs'd centuries ago. Fermiboson (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I'm inclined to think that this is a worthy article for inclusion but I have no idea how it could be fairly written without WP:OR. Fwiw I disagree that this could/should be a redirect to an article about the media because the notion of a "trope" is that it has a life outside of the published media. JMWt (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article now is essentially the same as it was when nominated. Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, the nomination was appropriate and made in good faith. The accusation of WP:ZEAL is baseless. Owen× ☎ 11:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand that WP:ZEAL has nothing to do with zealotry, right? It has to do with a rush to delete an article before we know whether it's worth keeping. A better name for it would be WP:OVERPROTECTIVE. There is nothing about bad faith in that entire guideline (nor intended in my use of it), just that some folks propose an article for deletion before editors have a chance to build it out. Anytime an article comes up for AfD a mere hours after creation, ZEAL is a reasonable part of the discussion. In this case, the article was (and is) labeled a stub, the nomination came three hours after the first post, and I feel that the subject does have valid scholarly sources as I linked above. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know exactly what WP:ZEAL is about, and I stand by my statement. Whether it was three hours or three months, if the article wasn't ready for main namespace, it should have been introduced in draftspace. The topic could have--and I believe should have--been developed inside the Islamophobia in the media article, and only spun off if and when its size and independent notability allowed for a standalone page. WP:ZEAL is an essay intended to discourage editors from nominating articles that haven't had a chance to get fleshed out. It is not an automatic waiver against nomination of pages less than X days old. Yes, ZEAL is indeed often part of the discussion when the nomination comes shortly after the article's creation, but that is not to say that it is always a reasonable part of the discussion. If the potential to mature into a viable article isn't apparent, article age is irrelevant, and a ZEAL accusation is unreasonable and unnecessarily antagonistic. Owen× ☎ 13:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, I made no accusations here, and there is no reason to be nasty about it. Until a few hours ago, this was a discussion on the merits of the article, not the editors. I found an AfD where (1) I easily located hundreds of quality RSs many of which could help make this a good article (I posted my WP:THREE), and (2) the AfD came three hours after the article's first post (which felt like -- still feels like -- overprotectiveness). Whether it should have started in draft space or not, AfD is not for cleanup and I felt Draftify was a good option. Maddy's point about draftifying an existing, mainspace article felt persuasive to me so I moved from Draftify to Keep. If this is is again going to devolve into insults and accusations, I'll take my leave. Thank you and good day. Last1in (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Not ready. A worthy topic gleaned from a list on CNN news. Needs expansion and explanation. See structure of Antisemitic trope and Anti-LGBT rhetoric. As is, this one is just a little list from a cable news outlet. — Maile (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Not mainspace ready. Needs more sourcing. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Poonawalla Group

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

WP:NCORP fail. All google hits are trivial mention (hiring and departure of personnel). See also draft at the same name, which was created when someone moved the article to draft, and the article author recreated an unlinked identical article. Fermiboson (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and India. Fermiboson (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn’t pass GNG either (obviously). NM 03:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are articles on the founder and his son, and their companies Serum Institute of India and, since acquisition in 2021, Poonawalla Fincorp. From one perspective, perhaps the present article "binds" these, but from another perspective, it is only a corporate instrument, without specific notability independent of the founding family and their businesses. AllyD (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Lawrence

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

Notability challenged since 2012. Given the subject's BLP status and possible issues regarding quality of sources, there are several moving parts here and I think it would be best to open this to the community for discussion. AfD participants should consult talk page for arguments made therein. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Music. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Source 19 and 28 are fine. It's not a slam dunk, but that's just enough coverage to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "arguments" given on the talk page are over 10 yrs ago, I wouldn't count the online chart as notable. I'll give them the paper sources existing (I can't confirm or deny), but the rest don't seem to help the discussion here... The last point in particular doesn't seem to hold true (I don't see this person has become notable for Halloween music, a decade after the comment was made), and it was iffy then... Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that source #19 for Keyboard Magazine is now defunct and the link just goes to the mag's general website. If it once had a precise article on Ms. Lawrence, I cannot find it online. Source #28 is functional and it is a local newspaper article; it's reliable but one of very few such sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboard Magazine archive link. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The "Keep" vote above is based on about 1.5 reliable sources (see my comment above) and I cannot find anything else significant and reliable beyond the Daily Pilot article that is currently at footnote #28. Regarding the talk page discussion, the named chart does not qualify, and Ms. Lawrence could be considered "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style" under WP:NMUSICIAN, **IF** Halloween Carols are a notable genre, and that is not convincing. Otherwise she is a working musician with various symphonies and has focused on some unique personal interests, but that does not make her notable enough for an article here. This article is dependent on personal and self-promotional sources, and tries to fill space with desperate leaps of notability, such as being mentioned in the same magazine as someone loosely affiliated with Iron Maiden or being asked to comment on someone else's book. She clearly does some unique things, but sorry no cigar. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree b. Yes, too many primary sources are used, but independent profiles in the Orange County Register and Los Angeles Times a decade apart (plus Keyboard Magazine) are enough for BASIC. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By BASIC, do you mean GNG? If so, GNG's not enough. She also needs to meet WP:NMUSICIAN. GNG is only for topics which don't have their own notability guidelines. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean WP:BASIC (basically GNG for people), which is sufficient for notability: People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is untrue, GNG applies to every single topic not covered by a SNG which is stricter than the GNG (mostly NCORP and NEVENT). Mach61 (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Um...that's what I said: GNG is for topics which don't have their own guidelines. This article, being about a musician, would fall under WP:NMUSICIAN. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. WP:NMUSIC does not overrule WP:GNG. Any music artist can be kept by passing GNG. In any case criteria 1 of WP:NMUSIC is exactly the same as GNG. The only SNGs that overrule GNG is WP:NCORP which is stricter, WP:ACADEMIC which is looser, and WP:NEVENT that may be stricter in some circumstances, imv Atlantic306 (talk)

Keep per Oaktree b; meets WP:GNG. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 19:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If passing GNG is all it takes, why are there so many different notability standards? I keep seeing this idea that "it meets GNG; ergo, it's automatically notable across the board." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see even a rough consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Excessive reliance on sources like PR Newswire and Facebook. If kept, take a flamethrower to the unencyclopedic language and poorly sourced content. BD2412 T 02:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject meets WP:GNG per the analysis provided by Oaktree b. Some cleanup is needed to remove some puffery and remove some of the primary sources but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. User:Let'srun 19:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fair warning: if this gets kept, I'm stubbing TF out of it. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have, in another editor's words, "taken a flamethrower" to the fluff and questionable sources on this article. There's...not much left. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - assuming the article will be edited to remove unsourced content, blogs, CD liner notes, press releases, social media, etc, there does not appear to be support for notability according to any guideline, based on other available sources, because this appears to be WP:PROMO: brief 2011 local coverage about a concert series for children; 2010 interview with Keyboard Magazine promoting brands of instruments; 2009 interview with the Orange County Register; a 2012 KPBS event listing with "You can also listen to Poe set to music by Orange County's Kristen Lawrence" at the end of the list; and a 2018 local news interview reprinted in the LA Times mentioning an upcoming performance and recently-released album. What seems to be missing is substantial independent, reliable, secondary coverage to support WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, or reviews or other substantial independent coverage of her work to support WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSICBIO notability; an article based primarily on what she says about her work does not help develop a neutral and balanced BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of English-speaking Quebecers

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

Does not meet WP:NLIST; there's a difference between Anglophones in Quebec and 'people in Quebec who can/do speak English'. To me, this is the difference between 'hockey players from Quebec' and 'people from Quebec who can/do play hockey'. I don't see this as a cohesive group of people per the terms of NLIST ("topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources") compared to Anglo-Quebecois or Anglophones in Quebec. It's also not clear what the criteria for "English-speaking" is - should both Justin and Pierre Elliott Trudeau be on this list? Even Quebecer is vague - John Abbott was born in Lower Canada, Samuel Bronfman was from Bessarabia and lived for many years in Manitoba, etc. The topic isn't specific enough to warrant a list under this title. Relatedly, we do not have articles for 'List of French-speaking Albertans' and such from other provinces. Kazamzam (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Canada. Kazamzam (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Would it make any difference if the article was renamed "List of Anglophone Quebecers"?
We have a long article on this group: English-speaking Quebecers. With 47 footnotes and 20 other references (including a book on the subject^[38]), the topic is certainly notable.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as outlined by OP, this list doesn't even make it clear what its inclusion criteria are. Right now, it seems to be a list of people from Quebec who don't have French last names, maybe? Though even that isn't clear, as some of them apparently are born outside Quebec. So what do we even count here as Quebecois? Does being born outside Quebec with parents from Quebec count? Do you have to have to have a registered address there? Also, apparently more than half the people in Quebec speak English, so is this really that notable? And lastly, how do we know this is even correct? Sure, we could check whether, say, and actor from the list speaks English in their films, but that's just original research. Cortador (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It did slightly more so at its original title, which was List of famous English-speaking Quebecers. So it was meant to be "famous" people, erroneously conflating the notion of having a Wikipedia article with fame and importance. Uncle G (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this is unclear in its criteria, just read the discussions of the categories such as Category:Anglo-Quebecers and Category:Anglophone Quebecers and Category:Anglophone Quebec people. ☺ Are you in, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, Kawnhr, and Nyttend? You could all probably help here. Uncle G (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to fail WP:NLIST. Owen× ☎ 11:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The title is referencing anyone who doesn't identify as a French-language native from Quebec; Canada has historically had two groups, the English everywhere else but Quebec, and the French population from Quebec (and to a lesser extent, in the rest of the country that are descendants from the original French settlers) that are the reason the country is setup as it is. The title refers to individuals from the first group that live among the second group, inside Quebec. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: List is fine, needs some sort of an introduction to explain what is meant by the title perhaps. Canada was founded by French settlers, who were then conquered by the English and setup the country as we have it now, with the English group being larger than the French group (ignoring the Native population and everyone who doesn't fit in either category, but that's a discussion for another time...) Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b - agree with the above explanation about Franco and Anglo history in Quebec and ROC, but for the non-Canadians among us, that's unclear from the title. I would at minimum change the name to Anglophone to clarify that it's not referring to 'anyone in Quebec who can speak English' because that would be an enormous list of minimal value. And the meaning of "Quebecer" is similarly vague: the Bronfman family was in Manitoba for decades, John Abbott was born before "Quebec" was the entity that it is today, author Sarah Bernstein lives in Scotland, Dov Charney flew the coop to the US as a high school student, and so on. @Cortador is right in pointing out that what counts as Quebecois is unclear. Kazamzam (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Using "Quebecois" in referring to English-speaking Quebecers is not helpful in this context, as that word can mean people from Quebec, but it can also mean those Quebecers of traditional French-Canadian heritage. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz as someone who is Quebecois in both senses of the word, I am familiar with both meanings. It's an imprecise term, as is the word Quebecer itself. My issue with this point, and with your reply below (almost all of which I agree with) is that what makes an "English-speaking" "Quebecer" is so vague that this list could incorporate thousands of people who do not have much in common beyond a linguistic characteristic that is non-specific (i.e. immigrant English-speaking Quebecers for whom English is a second, third, or fourth language vs. the well-established Montreal Jewish community vs. First Nations groups) and a residence status that is fluid. Are we going to update the list every time someone on here moves? When does someone start and stop being a Quebecer and who gets to make that call?

I agree that as a constitutionally reocgnised group there is sufficient notability; my argument is about the lack of coherence as a group in the current form that this list is in. Kazamzam (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I agree it's a fluid concept, but I don't think that means it's unworkable. If we treat it solely as a combination of English as primary language, and residence in Quebec, and get away from the idea of it being an ethnic identity, then it becomes more workable. An "English-speaking Quebecer" is someone whose primary language is English, and whose residence is in Quebec. If they leave Quebec, they're no longer an English-speaking Quebecer. For example, retired Supreme Court judge Ian Binnie was born in Quebec and spent his early years there, but moved to Toronto where he became highly notable. I wouldn't treat him as an English-speaking Quebecer, because he's notable for his legal career in Ontario. Again, there may be edge cases, where someone who speaks English has spent most of their life in Quebec and is notable for their working life in Quebec, but retires to Florida. :) But we don't throw out a concept because there are some judgment calls. From the perspective of notability, I would find it contradictory to have an article on English-speaking Quebecers that meets notability standards, but then say that it's not possible to have a list of English-speaking Quebecers. How can that be reconciled? I think we have to accept that it is a fluid concept, but I don't think that means the list is unworkable. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to “List of anglophone Quebecers”. From a policy perspective, this list meets WP:NLIST: the topic is notable and the list entries are verifiable by blue links. Deletion ≠ cleanup.

The article needs improvement by better defining the criteria and perhaps purging a few members after this is done. The list might also address some of the ambiguities noted above by breaking into sections:

- Anglophones from Quebec now living elsewhere
- Anglophones now living in Quebec from other places
- Native anglophone Quebecers

I think this list is as much about an ethnic identity as it is about language skills. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (1) The existence of an article on English-speaking Quebecers, with numerous cites, demonstrates that this is a notable topic. A list of English-speaking Quebecers is consistent with that article. (2) "Anglophone" means "English-speaking". See the Google search of dictionaries for "Anglophone". Changing the list to "Anglophone Quebecers" does not add anything. (3) "Anglophone Quebecer" is not an ethnic category, but a linguistic one. Immigrants from non-English speaking countries can be English-speaking Quebecers. (4) The English-speaking linguistic minority in Quebec has constitutional recognition. Section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives them the right to speak English in the courts and the legislature, regardless of their ability to speak French. Members of the English-speaking linguistic minority in Quebec also have educational rights, to have their children educated in English, at public expense, under s. 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a constitutionally recognised linguistic minority, they are a notable feature of Canada's political and cultural arrangements. (5) Since this is a linguistic characteristic, not an ethnic one, it doesn't matter if someone was born outside Quebec, like the Bronfman example. If an English-speaking Canadian moves to Quebec from another province, they become an English-speaking Quebecer. As well, if an English-speaking person leaves Quebec permanently, they are no longer an English-speaking Quebecer, since it's not an ethnicity. It's based on residence. (6) There will always be edge cases, such as the Trudeaus. The existence of a difficult-to-classify example doesn't mean the concept should be thrown out. (7) For someone like Abbott, my rule of thumb when I'm doing biography articles is that if a person was living in Quebec after it came into existence in 1867, they are a Quebecer. Again, the existence of a difficult case doesn't negate the concept entirely. (8) There is a List of Franco-Ontarians, a linguistic minority living in Ontario. It makes sense to have a similar list of the English-speaking minority in Quebec. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was typing up a longer response but Serjeant Buzfuz beat me to it. But the short version is that "English-speaking Quebecer" is a linguistic community, which is why the rules of inclusion are fuzzy, but it is nonetheless a notable group of people (which is why there is a parent article on it already). Perhaps the list could do with some clean-up (I haven't looked closely), but AfD isn't the place for that. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one option would be to put clearer requirements into the list description; perhaps a statement that the list only includes residents of Quebec for whom English is the first language learnt and still understood, which is one of the definitions of a rights-holder under s. 23 of the Charter. Could also put in a requirement that it only includes English-speaking Quebecers who were active post 1867. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, that test of "1st learnt and still understood" may be too strict, as it wouldn't include individuals who have a different mother tongue, but use English as their primary language in Quebec. Some immigrants, for example, may have a different mother tongue but use English primarily. Perhaps a requirement that "English is the primary language used by the individual"? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And, thinking about it more after my reply just now to @Kazamzam: perhaps a third requirement: that they are notable for their careers in Quebec. That eliminates people like Justice Binnie, who were born in Quebec, but are notable for their career in another province (in his case Ontario). Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, looking at the "B" section, in addition to Binnie, I would delete Saul Bellow. Born in Quebec, but moved to the US at age 9, and is notable for his literary career in the US. Those are just a couple of examples. If we were to put clear criteria on the list, there would have to be a clean-up crew. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still cruising the "B" section, I would keep Scotty Bowman. By the nature of his job, he's moved around North America a lot, and now lives in Florida, but his claim to notability as an English-speaking Quebecer is that he coached the Habs to four Stanley Cups. Can't get much more Quebec-notabilty than that! :) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz - this is great stuff but there have been zero edits on the article or its talk page in the past 3 days at this point, and it is still unreferenced from October 2007 (this pains me physically). Without the changes you've proposed, we run back to the previous problem(s) of the list being too unspecific in the definitions of both its major terms and potentially falling afoul of WP:NLIST. Do you want to get this dialogue started on the talk page and we can close the AfD + make the necessary changes? Kazamzam (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we're reaching a consensus. I've taken your suggestion and started a discussion on the Talk page for the List article. Comments welcome. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've now gone through the list and deleted a lot of individuals who did not have any clear connection to Quebec other than birth and education, but career elsewhere. I've also listed several "edge" cases on the Talk page. I would appreciate any comments on the proposed criteria for inclusion, and the edge cases, which editors may have. I think with those deletions, and the proposed criteria for inclusion, the list meets the criteria to continue as a list. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Serjeant Buzfuz. S5A-0043^Talk 12:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move and redirect to List of Quebecer English-language activists. Across dozens of bi-lingual countries we have lists and categories not of speakers of languages, but of people who either (a) actively work to promote a language (Category:Language activists) or work specifically with media in a language Category:People by occupation and language. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NLIST. Inclusion criteria are not specific enough as demonstrated by how many listed individuals have had to be deleted from it. Topic is also much too broad. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Daniel (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special Assistance Resource Teacher

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

I could not significant coverage in gnews, gbooks and Australian search engine Trove. Most of the sources are primary like minister's announcements and government sources. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- First off, it is inherently dangerous to try and re-establish notability for recent-but-pre-internet phenomena. It's easier to find good, online, academic resources about events in the 1780s than for 1980s. I agree that most of the sources for the article are primary, but not all. A 2009 journal article [39] discusses the scheme, as does a recent thesis [40] (though the latter is not a quality source). I think on balance, the article provides solid, verifiable info and enriches the encyclopaedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't regard a thesis as a reliable source. Can you find WP:THREE quality sources? LibStar (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot. However, that does not (in and of itself) require deletion of the article. I am not in this field and do not have access beyond publicly-posted works. If this were a new article, I might !vote to draftify, but it's a long-standing one about a subject rooted in a period about which secondary sources are thin on the ground. I just don't think deleting it improves the encyclopaedia since there are sources, both those already cited and the journal article I mention above. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Special Assistance Program (Australian education), or what can be salvaged. Second option would be to keep. Most of the article is unsourced, and there is almost certainly significant coverage in newspaper reports, but I expect most of them to not be scanned/publicly available due to copyright issues and it would be virtually impossible to integrate them unless an editor happens to live in Victoria and investigate it themselves. This is a particular issue for 60s-90s buildings and programs in Australia, as most of these newspaper reports enter public domain after 70 years [41]. As it reads right now, I also think there is a modest possibility of copyvio of offline sources, and I think it would be better to just merge the cited and/or verifiable material into what seems like the parent article of the topic. This is not withholding the possibility that in future this could change, but I think the topic would be have more encyclopedic value if merged into the parent article considering this is a program which only ran in Victoria, and the parent article is only 1076 words at time of writing so there is definitely room for the merge. Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I am not opposed to a keep in principle, as there is presumed coverage according to WP:GNG with the high likelihood of offline sources existing, I just think a merge would make the content more useful. Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Middle East Peace

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

One non-notable think tank among thousands. Current sourcing is pretty bad (all SPS), and a WP:BEFORE turns up no WP:SIGCOV of the organization. Only routine WP:NOTNEWS coverage of the org signing statements or listed affiliations of its personnel, which does not establish WP:GNG. Tag for WP:V have been on the page for 10 years. Longhornsg (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Politics, Israel, Palestine, and Washington, D.C.. Skynxnex (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did my own research yet nothing to add to nom. gidonb (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lust (upcoming film)

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

Procedural nomination per: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 13#Lust (upcoming film). This previously redirected to the article of the composer for the film, Sanjib Sarkar. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm unable to find anything that confirms this was ever released or reviewed or had anything notable about its production. Most references already used are reporting the same thing, which reads slightly promotional as if it was trying to generate buzz when trying to get sold. - 2pou (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all sources read like a rewritten press release. Cortador (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Quist

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC with no chart activity or third-party coverage. Article has remained in its current state since 2006 creation. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the article fails WP:NMUSIC. Doing some research reveals some sources but none of them are sufficient to pass. She has a song that has a quarter of a million listens on Spotify which would lean the article more towards passing but there's simply not enough media coverage. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 03:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I am not very familiar with WP:NMUSIC but after trying to find sources for this article, I think she may meet notability. She performs and/or records with two Grammy Award winners, Kitarō and Bobby McFerrin, and is a long-time collaborator with the latter. I did not add this to the article but saw in several sources that she is also in a band with a member of the rock band Heart. She also composed music for both Cirque du Soleil and an Emmy nominated film. Does this fit WP:NMUSIC? Rublamb (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Described as an electro-Balkan meets New age artist in some sources, but all are streaming sites, social media, then non-RS. There just isn't enough in RS to keep the article. Having a large number of streams on a certain platform isn't notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think I have solved the coverage issue with non-social media sources. Rublamb (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have found and added enough secondary sources to convince me of notability. Rublamb (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for searching. However, these don't really establish notability. The Albuquerque Journal is a passing mention, both Taos News articles and Corvallis Gazette are promotional pieces for upcoming shows, and Rock at Night doesn't appear to be a reliable source. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Perhaps you did not read the "About" page for Rock at Night Magazine. It used to be a print publication and is writen by staff journalists. From its website: "Covering globally, but concentrated in the United States, United Kingdom, and Europe, Rock At Night is dedicated to professional journalism and photography, publishing news daily, in its website and many social media formats." Thus, this is a reliable secondary source. Rublamb (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful to get more opinions about recently added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. killer bee  05:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial Acres, California

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

Disputed PROD. Non-notable location with little information found. Satellite image of coordinates does show a cluster of small buildings surrounded by desert, suggesting this may be a populated place; however, without any legal recognition, it fails WP:GEOLAND. All mentions found have been passing, confirming that this is a place, but without further information nothing can be said. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com brings up a 1977 legal notice mentioning To that portion of the unincorporated area generally known as Aerial Acres .... Another reference to it from 1985 as a development between Mojave and Rosemond. Several passing mentions to things being located there or occurring there refer to Aerial Acres, Edwards or Aerial Acres, North Edwards, suggesting that this development is a locale within or related to Edwards, California or North Edwards, California. The book Gem Trails of Southern California by one James R. Mitchell has this as a "small group of homes and trailers". I'm struggling to find any sort of significant history for this site; the indications I am seeing are of this location as an informal housing development. Hog Farm _Talk 03:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and the legal notice above. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there are 50-60 homes clumped together in some sort of old development. Aerial Acres is now a scruffy-looking place deep in the middle of nowhere. Our article says it's supposedly a "fly-in community" but I see no sign of airplanes or a runway when looking at Google Earth^[42] I don't want to hurt any residents' feelings but Aerial Acres is a bleak, unpromising place. Google Street View is even bleaker: desert, dust, dirt roads and occasional yard plantings. There's a high-power rocketry range on the edge of town.^[43] The only store is "The Mothership", a second-hand shop; the name makes sense since Aerial Acres looks like the sort of isolated place where alien abductions occur.
As for "keep" or "delete", recent AfD decisions for obscure California locations have been inconsistent. !voters have kept places with no historically mapped indication of habitation and deleted other places with 500 residents. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- They are only inconsistent when one applies totally wrongheaded and daft (given how the encyclopaedia would turn out if everyone applied them) standards like what your subjective opinion is of what the place looks like in Google Earth. If you keep doing it wrong, you're going to keep being the outlier that thinks that everyone else is being inconsistent, when it's actually simply you that's doing it wrong and being inconsistent with subjective measures, over and over and over. Hog Farm has the right approach: research, not subjective personal opinions of Google Earth images. Research would tell you, for starters, that the whole "fly-in" thing is a red herring added by Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs), and that the source that xe cited says no such thing. Uncle G (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Old topo maps give additional information; 32 US Geological Survey maps give time slices of this place's physical history over the last 108 years.
    I would argue that failure to consult these and current satellite imagery is, in fact, "totally wrongheaded and daft", especially when these resources are highly reliable and readily available.
    As for "my subjective opinion", when I count houses, I'd say that's hardly subjective.
    Note that I don't say "fly-in" community is a basis for notability -- in fact I used visual evidence and old maps to debunk the assertion.
    As for "keep" or "delete", I have not cast a !vote -- I've simply presented information.
    So, @Uncle G, aside from taking potshots at me, what's your take on this place? And why? What are your sources? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - A.B., the basic problem is that you're trying to judge this stuff almost entirely off of maps, which just doesn't work. Try Martensdale, California - a notable former community in this county which does not show up on maps. Same with Dubuque, Arkansas, which I wrote awhile back and have struggled to find a map showing the community on it. Meanwhile, a large number of AFDs have held that routine HOA developments/subdivisions/housing tracts without any sort of formal recognition or significant coverage in reliable sources do not warrant a separate article, and those sort of things would appear on maps or when counting houses. Count of houses does not lead to notability - what leads to notability is the history and coverage of the area in RS. Review of maps is often helpful (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intake, Inyo County, California where map review solved a rather odd situation) but we can't just judge notability based on maps or structure counts. It is rather arbitrary to try to judge notability by how much seeming was/is there from a map perspective, and is frankly a form of original research. Hog Farm _Talk 20:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hog Farm, I don’t know if this place is notable or not. I do think maps, photography and satellite imagery should be part of the mix in evaluating these places. My instincts tell me this place is probably not notable but I want to see what other information turns up here. Looking at old maps, this place grew up with Edwards AFB - it may have been a failed development. There are multiple unbuilt, unused roads. We’ll see. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        No. Giving us your subjective opinion and then even worse asking us for our subjective opinions too, and not even checking whether "fly-in" is true by simply applying the verifiability policy and seeing that the source said no such thing and that Carlossuarez46 just added that conclusion taken from thin air (which I've seen done in many Carlossuarez46 substubs, alas) are utterly the wrong approach to content. Uncle G (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - And you're still getting it wrong. "My take" from looking at Google Earth or aerial photographs isn't how to construct an article. The only use of looking at maps is to tell us what to look for when the article doesn't even say, or when we know that Carlossuarez46 just pulled things out of a hat when dumping GNIS data, and sometimes to check that a source found is talking about the same place and not another place by the same name. Uncle G (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Hog Farm, except that a Rand McNally commercial atlas puts this under the umbrella of California City, California, and other things just give this as a prose list of minor residential places that are "rural and low-population density" in the Antelope Valley. Rand McNally says ("RMC Place") that this is simply an entry in the California Rivers and Mountains Conservancy database and points to California City ("incl. with California City (Inc. Place)") for details. I think that we should follow the Rand McNally lead and redirect to California City, California. Uncle G (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uncle G, I’m confused. You criticized me above for using decades worth of USGS topo maps plus satellite imagery with strong language like ”totally wrongheaded and daft”. Now you’re using a Rand McNally atlas? What’s up with that? —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I'm using its gazetteer, which has Rand McNally's description, in words, which I even quoted outright right in front of your nose there, not a subjective analysis of "scruffy-looking place deep in the middle of nowhere" or "I see no sign of airplanes or a runway". Do you really not understand the difference between your own subjective guesswork and consulting an authoritative source? Asking me for my subjective guesswork instead of what I read in a source shows that you are still utterly wrongheaded here. We don't do this. It's daft. Think about what would happen if everyone evaluated subjects this way.
    We don't know what the thing is. We know from long experience that Carlossuarez46 just made up things, perhaps helpfully intended (in the knowledge that "unincorporated community" is meaningless when you are saying it in hundreds of thousands of data-dump articles) but still outright made up from whole cloth. So the obvious approach is not to squint at photographs and guess and tell us how something is "bleak" and "scruffy", but to consult a gazetteer. They tell us what things on maps are.
    Uncle G (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. I'm inclined to keep unless there's a better argument to fold it into something else. I'm not sure if this lies within the North Edwards, California CDP, but there are definitely references to "Aerial Acres" as its own community. There was a local newspaper, not online, called the Boron Enterprise, that i see a reference to being the only paper that cared about Aerial Acres and other local communities. Total aside, i must also give props to A. B., for his color commentary "I don't want to hurt any residents' feelings but Aerial Acres is a bleak, unpromising place....the name makes sense since Aerial Acres looks like the sort of isolated place where alien abductions occur."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The discussion here is very interesting but I see fewer editors have weighed in with an opinion on what should happen with this article. We have two rather weak Keeps, a Delete and a Redirect suggestion. I'm not counting "votes", just stating where consensus stands right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G, so why is one Rand McNally gazetteer more reliable than decades worth of USGS maps? That's repeated aerial photogrammetry and goundtruthing by an American federal agency. Is all this not from "an authoritative source" as you put it?

Is it just because the United States Geological Survey presents data graphically and Rand McNally uses prose?

As I wrote previously: "I do think maps, photography and satellite imagery should be part of the mix in evaluating these places.". Each AfD is a puzzle to solve and we all bring different pieces.

And as for my language like "scruffy" which you still make such a big deal of, what Milowent already observed as "color commentary", I put that stuff in for fun. A sanctionable violation of some obscure WP:PG?

I continue to think this is just a very old subdivision.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3 more comments:

I’m not finding much official guidance specifically about using maps as sources. There is WP:GOOGLEMAPS with which I agree. Nothing much from WP:RSN either, at least not for high quality maps (I’m using a mobile device so I may be missing something on WP:RSN).
WP:MAPCITE is very good however it is an essay. I think my usage of maps is in line with the essayist’s views on maps.
I will note that Google Earth images are reliable however all the labels they associate with the image are very unreliable and should never be used. Perhaps they use GNIS?

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~. Not notable. I am agnostic as to which target to use -- three reasonable possibilities have been presented (Edwards, California, North Edwards, California California City, California) and I'll support what others here decide.

Notability (geographic features)#Settlements and administrative regions says one of these can make a populated place notable:

"Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."

This is not a legally recognized place.

"Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources."

I'm not seeing anything that meets GNG. Not even alien abductions.

If something comes up to establish notability, ping me -- I may be traveling this week. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I made a comment on the "Boron History" page on facebook asking about news coverage of Aerial Acres and got this response: "Not much is written about Aerial Acres from what I found in old clippings it was known as "Poor Man's Paradise" Aerial Acres was made up of homesteads established somewhere between 1916 to 1918, (this was before North Edwards was developed. It did have a small airstrip at one time. Aerial Acres was part of California City and annexed in the late 1980's/ early 1990's and it went back to Kern County and California City got Wonder Acres."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again. After User:Milowent's latest comment, I think Redirection might be a suitable outcome but closures are based on consensus, not the closer's opinion. Milowent, are you still standing by your Keep opinion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep- per WP:GEOLAND 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am going to stick with my keep !vote. I have found coverage of the community in the archives of The Bakersfield Californian and added some to the article. (ping:Liz and A. B.) --Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. killer bee  05:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milowent. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Neighborhood association. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of homeowner associations and civic associations

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

10 years later, User:Missvain's PROD concerns hold true: the article fails WP:GNG and is WP:OR. Its synthesis would will remain the latter unless WP:reliable sources could be found that extensively compare these associations. The top search results ([44][45]) are merely 4 paragraphs. Scholarly sources are unlikely to provide necessary comparison [46][47]. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Wow, what a flashback! I confirm with the noms assessment. Still fails GNG and OR. Thank you for tagging me. Missvain (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Neighborhood association: and source properly. Owen× ☎ 11:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if you can find sources. I assume its different in different nations. Dream Focus 19:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no clear merge target (why NA and not HOA, or other similar topics)? And even if there were, nothing here is sourced, so there's nothing to merge anyway. If you want to flesh out content at any similar articles, then do it de novo. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graydancer's Ropecast

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

I couldn't find any sources besides the two used in the article, and both are interviews. QuietCicada - Talk 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada - Talk 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Internet. Skynxnex (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just another one of millions of podcasts out there, no evidence to suggest this one is particularly notable beyond a couple of passing mentions in the press. Flip Format (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it doesn't pass WP:NPODCAST or WP:GNG. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all forementioned reasons above. Lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG. -- 12:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Tumbuka Arch (talk)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain–Spain relations

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

This article is largely sourced from one source which is primary. In fact, all sources are primary. Lacking elements of notable relations like embassies and state visits. The agreements are minor. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Bahrain, and Spain. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I can find no sources at all that would make this notable (fails GNG). It appears to be part of a trend to make a stand-alone article for every combination of countries on the planet, regardless of how insignificant the relationship might be. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.-- 12:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Tumbuka Arch (talk)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina Highway 68 (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page disambiguated only one extant article South Carolina Highway 68 while the other entries here are either invalid or merely linked to one of its section. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. The following related pages are also nominated for the same rationale, after some of CSD G14 nominations declined:

NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Carolina. Skynxnex (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See no reason why all three topics can't be described in the primary topic Jumpytoo Talk 05:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: South Carolina Highway 68 (disambiguation) was previously a WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: No reason for these to exist. Let'srun (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kensri School

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/KENSRI School

Articles for deletion/Kensri School

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

Last AfD was in 2015, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KENSRI School. Since then we don't grant automatic notability to schools. Unreferenced and no coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, and Karnataka. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only reliable sources mentioning the school seem to be ones covering the death of a student, Shreyas Hareesh. However, they aren't about the school, and just mention it in passing. That said, having a mascot section with just the word "Tiger" and not even a full stop is pretty funny. Cortador (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete per nom. BD2412 T 02:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya. ✗plicit 00:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Bagudi

AfDs for this article:

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

No third-party sources found. Sohom (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, India, and Odisha. Sohom (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are primary or dead links. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No issues with a redirect. Sohom (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gnyana Sudha Vidyalaya Bidar

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

Unreferenced for 8 years. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Karnataka. LibStar (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I could find no reliable or significant coverage for this school online through Google, Google Scholar, Google Books etc. Most hits on Google Search were either short advertisements/admissions listings or social media information. Fails WP:GNG and also WP:NSCHOOL. The Night Watch (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No information on the article. No sources mentioned as well. Not notable. killer bee  05:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Organization for Understanding Cluster Headaches

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was 13 years ago. some of the sources identified then are now dead links. I searched for "Organization for Understanding Cluster Headaches" and "Organisation for the Understanding of Cluster Headache " and could not find significant indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Belgium, United Kingdom, and Texas. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of reliable sources. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The organization is mentioned here [48], but that's not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all forementioned reasons above. Lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.-- 12:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Tumbuka Arch (talk)

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.

[FOOTNOTEEbmeierAndrewsArayaArnold2018-1] Ebmeier et al. 2018.

[1]