Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 24	December 26 >

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 redirect to Xilinx#Family lines of products. Most of the "keep" !votes are variations of WP:USEFUL and fail to address how WP:NLIST is met. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Xilinx FPGAs[edit]

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

Boldly redirected by @Drmies:, subsequently contested twice. No opinion myself on the merits, but sending it here to prevent edit warring. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a hardware engineer who restored the article:

This article is sourced with information from Xilinx, the world's (former) largest FPGA manufacturer prior to being bought by AMD. Condensed information on the history of Xilinx FPGAs is difficult to find, and this article is extremely useful for electrical and hardware engineers. I am posting this from my job, as I had to take time out of my day to track down where this article went, when all I needed was to compare gate sizes of old obsolete Xilinx FPGAs. If https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ford_vehicles and similar get to exist, this should as well. You might think FPGAs are "non-notable" products, but you would be very, very incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:300B:14D9:8000:692B:E4AF:AABC:37FA (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 2603:300B:14D9:8000:692B:E4AF:AABC:37FA (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup This article is full of information BUT it needs to be trimmed down, FGPAs are notable products but the tables are clearly indiscriminate lists of data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WngLdr34 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would heavily disagree. The data included in the tables is extremely relevant to engineers. CLBs, LUTs, User I/O might not mean much to you, but it is the DNA of FPGAs and provides understanding and means of comparison. 2603:300B:14D9:8000:692B:E4AF:AABC:37FA (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know my way around IC equipment, and in a generalist encyclopedia you would not find this information. It is similar to how large tables of chemical properties are beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes: a generalist encyclopedia provides half-hearted coverage and isn't particularly useful in most cases, which is why most of them are dead. Why should we aspire to be more like one? Britannica discontinued its print edition and Encarta was shut down entirely, due largely to Wikipedia's depth and breath of coverage being superior in every way. jp×g 03:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that Wikipedia also has many pages about mathematical equations that most people never have heard of. As well as many computer algorithms nobody would need to know outside of CS people. You can find them in other math handbooks and textbooks, but it doesn't stop them from being introduced on a more brief level towards general public. The situation is similar here, the list contains the basic introduction about the characteristics of some FPGA manufactured by a specific vendor without much detail. And you can tell as the time goes by how large or powerful the state-of-the-art FPGAs have become. Things like how the DSP functions internally with how many pipeline registers and what kind of data operation induce how many clock cycle latency, they can be kept out of this page and let people find them in thousands of pages of datasheets.

I think this situation is mostly caused by the costly development of some specific engineering fields. Mostly in integrated circuit and transportation vehicle manufacturing. You can hardly find a diverse group of people working on the same problem, unlike say developing a sorting algorithm for finding largest number in a database. Usually it's just one problem, and one or two solutions. Sometimes the solution is this kind of lists, like Intel, AMD, NVIDIA, and Qualcomm. LucienneGainsborough (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up The information here is valuable, but the formatting needs work in some sections. I disagree with the other person saying it needs to be trimmed down; I would say it needs to be *organized*, but most of the current contents should be kept. 97.115.253.45 (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 97.115.253.45 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- As an addendum to what I said above, I'd also like to note that, while FPGAs are somewhat less well-known outside of engineering circles, that they are of similar notability to CPUs, and (yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but) wikipedia does have List of Intel processors and List of AMD processors, neither of which seem to have spawned any debate over their inclusion in wikipedia. 97.115.253.45 (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, yes, it looks like I've made no other edits. My dynamic IP seems to have changed recently; I have made other edits in the past. 97.115.253.45 (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - IP, I did not place that note there, and I think it is unhelpful and undeserved--I prefer to look at arguments. What I don't see is an argument for keeping besides "it's valuable", and that's not an argument but a statement. Lots of things that might be valuable are not encyclopedic. Organization? I don't know. It's basic, for me: it needs secondary sourcing, and no one in this discussion has offered ANY yet. Also, OTHERSTUFF--I can't go and patrol all the six or seven million articles on Wikipedia, but yes, I think all (or many) of those articles are utterly redundant and make a mockery of what the project should be. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FPGAs are a significant product category in modern digital electronics and Xilinx are a historically important supplier of FPGAs. This list article is more useful in electrical engineering than a List_of_Pokémon, now over a thousand strong, which seems to find space on Wikipedia. GrahamN-UK (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- GrahamN-UK, please go ahead and nominate that article as well; you have my blessing. As far as I'm concerned, all that stuff needs to go. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I have no wish to delete the Pokemon list; it's not my cup of tea but I assume it's useful to the people who have collated the information. We have a number of EEs here who have stated this collated list of Xilinx FPGA information is useful and we should retain it on that basis. The only voice currently in favour of deleting the page is yours. From your talk page you don't seem to have any relevant interest in FPGAs but you do have an interest in deleting pages. GrahamN-UK (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, the boilerplate: FPGAs are notable, Xilinx is notable, it's not obvious that each individual entry on this list is notable but surely the group is notable. The question, then, is whether the list is notable. I am an engineer and I cannot envision a solid argument for deleting it. Drmies has redirected it saying that it's "product information": okay, that makes it sound bad. But this isn't a list of anime figurines or pop singles or Funko Pops or whatever, it's a list of circuit components that are a crucial part of design for a large number of systems, devices, et cetera. I'm not going to be one of those dramatists who says "people will die if this article is deleted", but it's probably worth mentioning that FPGAs (including FPGAs from Xilinx) are in controllers for all sorts of things like traffic lights, ignition switches, industrial machinery and safety equipment. jp×g 01:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- User:JPxG, you're saying that the list article is relevant because you say the circuit components are important, more important than Funko Pops (I don't know what those are--but I also don't know what FPGAs are). That these things are found in many other things is relevant, but if we're talking about a ton of things that are not notable by themselves, things for which there is not a SHRED of secondary sourcing, and for which there is nothing that indicates that any of the elements are of encyclopedic value--then I'm a no. I mean, sure these things may be important in a traffic light, but traffic lights also have light bulbs, and lists of those light bulbs are also unencyclopedic. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - "I also don't know what FPGAs are" As you don't know what they are how can you have any basis to decide whether a page about them is relevant? A better way to determine the relevance of the page is to listen to those who understand them, and use them, all of whom are in favour of retaining the page. GrahamN-UK (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - GrahamN-UK, notability comes from sourcing; see WP:N. At the risk of mansplaining, we're not talking about chips or switches or whatever--we're talking about the notability of an article on them. If they're important, secondary sources should say so. That's what makes notability. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had typed something out about this as a follow-up comment, but I closed the tab: guess that'll show me. Anyway... I don't think either of us is going to come up with a satisfactory definition of "encyclopedic value" here. Generally speaking, field-programmable gate arrays are integrated circuits that function in a similar role as ASICs or CPUs; they're the brains of an embedded system (or whatever chipset they're used in). The specifications of the FPGA generally determine the specifications for the rest of the system, so I would say a list of them is significant in a way that a list of diodes would not be. As for independent sources, well, we are doing a little better than "not a SHRED": I see EEJournal, SEC filings, XCell Journal, UC Berkeley and the EE Times. Surely this is something. However, I suppose the broader point is that most of the references are to data sheets -- but what else would they be to? Data sheets are canonical descriptions of how integrated circuits work; they're technical documents prepared for the sole purpose of describing the characteristics and behavior of a component. Any electronics engineer is very well-acquainted with the use of datasheets for objective facts about components, regardless of their opinions about the company itself; if they weren't, it would be impossible for us to be having this conversation. I'm typing on a USB keyboard, whose device controller communicates with my computer's USB host controller, which sends data along a bus which is processed by the kernel via my computer's CPU (and some thousands of other components between my computer and yours, of which I will spare you the details). Some of these components were made by communists and some of them were made by capitalists -- among the capitalists (and conceivably among the communists as well) many were made by firms that hated each others' guts, but all of them are able to agree on datasheets that describe how the components interfaced with each other, which is how I'm posting this comment. If the companies lied on their datasheets, the computer wouldn't work: the pins would be at the wrong voltage, or they wouldn't fit on the board, or they wouldn't be able to transmit because they were receiving signals incorrectly. What I mean to say by this is that, so long as we've established that the preconditions for this list are notable (Xilinx is notable, FPGAs are notable, FPGA applications are notable, embedded systems are notable), there's no real reason to doubt the reliability of integrated circuit datasheets outside of some strange hypothetical in which a company is lying on them, which would itself be a news item with ample documentation. jp×g 03:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given above. This is JUST product information. If all of this is so incredibly important that we need a list without secondary sourcing of 122k and hundreds of products, one would expect the article for the manufacturer, Xilinx, to be a bit more than a COI-inflected bit of company news. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not soldering Xilinx on my board, I'm soldering their chips. The article Computational physics is much longer than the article Journal of Computational Physics, for the same reason. jp×g 03:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There needs to be less technical talk and more focus on notability and sources. And it would be nice if some of those advocating "clean up" also volunteered to do this work, especially if you are knowledgeable about the subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Xilinx#Family lines of products. This is no different from, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CEM and SSM chips, and inherently amounts to a WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:NOTDIR violation. Notability is not the issue here, so the above presentation of sources does not convince me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially a product page listing. There is nothing here that can't be directly found on the company website. No real encylopdic value. No historical analysis. Fails WP:NOT. scope_creep^Talk 13:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't think it is going to do any good to retype all of the stuff I said above, but I've addressed all of the things you are saying here. First of all, it is not a "product page listing". many of these chips are no longer manufactured or sold by Xilinx. This article does not serve any marketing purpose for them: their own website has a bunch of datasheets squirreled away in obscure locations. The main part of it is just going to tell you a bunch of stuff about how you should buy the latest models: their FPGA homepage just talks about 16nm, 20nm, 28nm and 45nm. Meanwhile, our list includes 2000nm models as far back as 1985.

It would indeed theoretically be possible for readers to go read a bunch of stuff on the Internet to learn more about a subject: we don't need a list of Xilinx FPGAs, and we don't need an article about Antarctica, and we don't need an article about the Peloponnesian War -- but we have them because we are an encyclopedia. What kind of "historical analysis" are you looking for in a list article? I would be glad to write this for you, if you could explain what it means. jp×g 15:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it appears most of this is from primary sources with the company and can't be used; I don't find anything for sources and this is likely too technical to be included in a general encyclopedia. The list of Ford vehicles mentioned at least has some discussion around them, this is a wall of text with no images or much of an explanation for anything given. Oaktree b (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: I would be glad to find illustrations or write explanations of technical content (in addition to the "historical analysis" mentioned above), if you have an idea of what that would entail for this list article. jp×g 15:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about the subject to comment, it would have to be "dumbed-down" (at least partially), so it can make sense to the average reader, otherwise I have no idea what it's talking about. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am an engineer, and I find this article a lot more usable than Xilinx's own website to understand the differences between different FPGAs, including older models. This wikipedia article ignores all the marketing nonsense and simply tells me the facts of what each of the FPGAs can do. Now, I know some of the main issues here are (1) lack of primary sources [though there are several primary sources cited], and (2) there is a some extraneous information [we can clean that up, and we should also give more of a preamble of what all this stuff means]. I think List of Nvidia graphics processing units is a good example of how this article ought to become. That NVIDIA article has also helped me a lot with my engineering work. Biod534760 (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not just an indiscriminate list; it has lots of useful commentary on the various classifications of FPGAs. It is also well sourced. I would certainly use the article if I was going to use these parts in a design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceThomson (talk • contribs) 07:29, 1 January 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 00:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Handball at the 2015 African Games – Men's tournament squads[edit]

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

List of sportspeople with no evidence of significant coverage in independent sources, therefore failing WP:LISTN. The sources used to verify the content are permanent dead links so this also fails WP:V currently. I would oppose merging the content, firstly, because it would make the parent article too large (see WP:NOTMERGE) and, secondly, because it is completely unsourced. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Handball, and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Kenya, Libya, Nigeria, and Senegal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The links are accessible via Web archive [1], [2]. So the list is not unsourced. My commends to the nations:

Angola: 13 out of 16 players have already an article
Congo: No WC participation
DR Congo: At least 3 players played at the 2021 WC (I think that there is some information about them in local press)
Egypt: If I look at the Egyptian i found many overlapping with DOB to the squads of the OG and WC in the similar period. The names are also similar but not exact the same. I have the filling that many names of the Egyptian squad is translated falsely and has therefor a red link. But I'm not familiar with Egyptian names and so am not confident to replace the names. The French page have some Link fr:Handball_aux_Jeux_africains_de_2015
Gabon: if i google "player name handball site:https://lunion-archives.org" I get some press of Gabon. Like a player list of December 2015: https://lunion-archives.org/web.11/dmdocuments/N12014-24-25-12-2015-011.pdf I think with some research articles are possible to create
Ivory Coast: I didn't found a lot
Kenya: There exist some article were some players are mentioned https://www.the-star.co.ke/search/?query=Paul+Ondara+Handball
Libya: I have no chance to find something because I'm not able to read Arabic.
Nigeria: I found some results of all players online. I think with time we would be able to create bios.
Senegal: I found a list of the players of the games qualification in February https://de.calameo.com/read/000275347e7914e29a0a4. More news are hard to find

I didn't do a deep dive in each countries news websites. I have the feeling if you do so. I would be able to create for many handballers bios. It also hard to find sources because I'm not a native speaker in French, English and Arabic and also some of the names varies to found sources especially Arabic names. I think they were poorly translated at this lists. In conclusion I tent to keep.--🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With the Brazzaville PDF source, is it both independent and reliable? The Gabon news source is very good and I hadn't found it myself. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The tournament may be notable but I don't see the squad listings as meeting WP:NLIST.LibStar (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As previously stated, the links are accessible through web archive. Overall, the tournament is obviously notable as are the teams themselves so there is no reason there should not be a squad page. Watercheetah99 (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the Brazzaville source, accessible through Web Archive, is not independent of the tournament itself, so fails to demonstrate notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 26 December 2022 (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!} 23:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, and it seems like the AfD nominator is NOTHERE. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NCHA Rider Hall of Fame[edit]

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

Does not pass the General notability guideline as the only independent source cited does not provide significant coverage of the article subject. The only sources that do are the NCHA itself. When searching for sources I could not find any independent ones that provide significant coverage. Devonshire Cowgirl (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:WikiProject Equine has been notified of this discussion. Atsme 💬 📧 00:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]
KEEP - this AfD is absurd - common sense tells us a National Hall of Fame for an International sports association is notable. This nom has 10 edits. How was this AfD even allowed? It appears to be the work of this IP SPA. Also see their noms for WP:Articles for deletion/NCHA Horse Hall of Fame, and WP:Articles for deletion/NCHA Members Hall of Fame. Atsme 💬 📧 00:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep this is a brand new account and these AfDs are their first action. We have a sock here, folks. Article is clearly notable. Montanabw^(talk) 05:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, and it seems like the AfD nominator is NOTHERE. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NCHA Members Hall of Fame[edit]

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

Does not pass the General notability guideline as the one independent source cited does not provide significant coverage of the article subject. The only source that does is the NCHA itself. When searching for sources I could not find any independent ones that provide significant coverage. Devonshire Cowgirl (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:WikiProject Equine has been notified of this discussion. Atsme 💬 📧 00:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]
KEEP - this AfD is absurd - also see WP:Articles for deletion/NCHA Rider Hall of Fame and WP:Articles for deletion/NCHA Horse Hall of Fame by this same 10 edit editor. Common sense tells us a National Hall of Fame for an International sports association is notable. This nom has 10 edits. How was this AfD even allowed? It appears to be the work of this IP SPA. Atsme 💬 📧 00:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep clearly from an account created only to file these AfDs, articles are notable and bad faith AfD appears to be from a disruption only new account, Montanabw^(talk) 05:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, and it seems like the AfD nominator is NOTHERE. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NCHA Horse Hall of Fame[edit]

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

Does not pass the General notability guideline as none of the independent sources cited provide significant coverage of the article subject. The only sources that do are the NCHA itself. When searching for sources I could not find any independent ones that provide significant coverage. Devonshire Cowgirl (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:WikiProject Equine has been notified of this discussion. Atsme 💬 📧 00:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]
KEEP - this AfD is absurd - common sense tells us a National Hall of Fame for an International sports association is notable. This nom has 10 edits. How was this AfD even allowed? It appears to be the work of this IP SPA. Also see their noms for WP:Articles for deletion/NCHA Rider Hall of Fame, and WP:Articles for deletion/NCHA Members Hall of Fame. Atsme 💬 📧 00:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep brand new account created solely for the purpose of filing AfDs solely on NCHA-related articles. WP:DUCK and disruption only account. Montanabw^(talk) 05:35, 26 December 2022 (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!} 08:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds Are Invincible[edit]

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

Non-notable release per WP:NSONGS >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] List of sources found in a brief check of Google. Between all of these, I think it's worth a keep. QuietHere (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, if you look at the sources, coverage is not indepth and rarely strays beyond confirming the existence of the track/song. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented by QuietHere. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per QuietHere's sourcing. If this had been included on some sort of album, I could have potentially been persuaded on some sort of redirect/merge situation, as I don't see this evolving much out of stub status. But I don't see any great avenue for that. And that's fine. There's no policy against stubs. Sometimes they make the most sense. Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it passes WP:GNG with the sources found by QuietHere. TipsyElephant (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Jennings (American football)[edit]

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

The subject had a minor career in college football. Of the few in-depth sources, they are all press releases and interviews which lack sufficient independence from the subject to pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTSBASIC. 4meter4 (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Rivals.com	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Stats table from a football recruiting fan site; not considered significant coverage as it has zero prose and contextualization. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTSBASIC
LSU QB Anthony Jennings is ready if needed Archived September 8, 2014, at the Wayback Machine	Y	N	?	Y	N	Interview with the subject. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTSBASIC
LSU quarterback Anthony Jennings manages Outback Bowl win in first start	Y	N	Y	Y	N	There is some in-depth coverage here. However, a large part of the article consists of interviews with the subject's coach and teammates; as such as a whole the article lacks sufficient independence to pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTSBASIC.
Anthony Jennings will start at QB for LSU against Wisconsin, according to report	Y	N	Y	?	N	Article is entirely based on a press release provided directly from the subject's team. Lacks independence from the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTSBASIC.
Gisclair, Casey. "LSU QB battle: It looks like Harris wins the job". The Times of Houma-Thibodaux. Retrieved 2019-08-18.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Article is about an entirely different player. Jennings is mentioned in passing. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTSBASIC.
Stephenson, Creg (2016-07-18). "Former LSU QB Anthony Jennings transfers to Sun Belt program". al. Retrieved 2019-08-18.	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Article consists entirely of a press release from the subject's team and quoted text of his coach. Lacks sufficient independence from the subject to pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTSBASIC.
Ching, David (March 10, 2016). "Anthony Jennings to transfer from LSU". ESPN. Retrieved March 12, 2016.	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Article consists of interviews with the subject's coach and teamates. Lacks sufficient independence from the subject to pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTSBASIC.
McGuire, Kevin (2015-06-19). "LSU QB Anthony Jennings among three more LSU players arrested". CollegeFootballTalk. Retrieved 2019-08-18.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This a gossip article. Here we run afoul of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTTABLOID.
"Charges dropped against LSU's Anthony Jennings, two teammates". SI.com. Retrieved 2019-08-18.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This a gossip article. Here we run afoul of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTTABLOID. One has to ask if it's even appropriate to have this content in the article based on WP:BLP policy.
"Anthony Jennings 2014 Game Log". College Football at Sports-Reference.com. Retrieved 2019-08-18.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Stats table; not considered significant coverage as it has zero prose and contextualization. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTSBASIC
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His on-field career ended not being spectacular, but he did appear in 35 games at QB for LSU and Louisiana, tallying 4,000 passing yards. See here. Not surprising, as a Division I QB, he got tons of SIGCOV. Newspapers.com has approximately 4,400 hits ranging from feature stories to passing mentions in game coverage. Examples of SIGCOV include: this, this, this (part 1/part 2), this, this (part 1/part 2), this (part 1/part 2). Cbl62 (talk) 15:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also this, this, this, this, and this (part 1/part 2). Cbl62 (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of these pieces are independent. They all include interviews and quotes with either the subject or his coach. We need sources with in-depth intellectually independent analysis which are not primarily based on interviews. You still have't demonstrated significant coverage that passes WP:SPORTSBASIC. Please produce multiple interview free sources with independent intellectually original material about the subject as required by policy. 4meter4 (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is wholly baseless. There is no need to produce "interview free sources", as you suggest. The fact that an in-depth profile off a person includes occasional quotes does not undercut its independence. Cbl62 (talk) 16:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Sources containing quotes of the subject or his coach or other closely connected people to the subject lack independence from the subject. This is how WP:SIGCOV is applied to biographies encyclopedia wide at WP:AFD. Sports figures are no exception per the language at WP:SPORTSBASIC. I see no reason why college football players should get special treatment. Interviews can't be used towards GNG. Period.4meter4 (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the policy/guideline that says that an in-depth journalistic profile of a person lacks independence if it includes occasional brief quotes. What's that? You can't find such a policy/guideline? That's because it doesn't exist. Cbl62 (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTSBASIC are both clear on this point; despite your attempt to wiki-lawyer around it. If the article is clearly involving an interview, it lacks independence. Period. If the subject is truly notable you should be able to find the bare minimum of two sources that are interview free and have some intellectually independent coverage. If you can't, that's probably a strong indicator the subject is not notable.4meter4 (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTSBASIC are both clear on this point." Actually, no. Neither of those guidelines says anything about interviews. And, of course, we're not even dealing with pure interviews here. We're talking about feature stories with occasional quotes. Cbl62 (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. While this policy doesn't specifically name interviews, it should. WP:MULTSOURCES is a policy application of WP:SIGCOV (although for organizations) which does list interviews specifically; which I think demonstrates that the spirit of the rule in the wider policy is we exclude interview material. This is a pretty commonly accepted interpretation of WP:SIGCOV policy. Further if you look at the footnotes on Wikipedia:No original research and relevant linked conversation the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard we consider interviews in newspaper articles WP:PRIMARY sources. If the goal of WP:SIGCOVis to ensure WP:SECONDARY coverage exists, I don't see how you can argue interviews fall under that category. Once an article starts engaging with quoted text and interview material it becomes a WP:PRIMARY source. And that is according to consensus at the RS board. 4meter4 (talk) 16:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. The argument that in-depth, third-party newspaper sources are somehow not independent of the subject is wholly baseless, and is not supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how articles containing quoted text and interviews are independent? This is not how we interpret newspaper sources with quoted text.4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So under your interpretation, this source (part 1/part 2) is disqualified because roughly 10% of the total text consists off a quote from the subject's coach. That is simply not a correct interpretation of policies and guidelines. Cbl62 (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider it a WP:PRIMARY source. Once you start getting into partial interview articles, it's not clear if the prose section has also been influenced in some way by the subject of the interview in the non-quoted parts of the article. This would seem to be in keeping with RS noticeboard discussion on interviews in newspaper articles. Again, I think finding 2 sources without interviews should be possible if the subject is notable. I would concentrate your efforts there, given you seem to have access to more materials than I do. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – clearly passes GNG – quotes DO NOT disqualify in-depth sources from counting towards notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable subject. Nominator has a bizarre idea that interviews conducted by independent journalists are not reliable sources that can establish notability. This is a absurd notion that should be expunged. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's bizarre (well actually not; as I expect it from editors active in this content area) is that everyone here seems to be ignoring the RS Noticeboard decisions on what constitutes WP:PRIMARY sources. This just re-affirms my experience that editors in the sports area consistently ignore policies widely applied and upheld elsewhere; something that has led to numerous RFCs in previous years4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't read every discussion on every noticeboard here. Can you point me the discussion where it was that established that interviews (and feature articles that include quotes from interviews) published in independent newspapers aren't reliable sources that can used to establish notability? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the linked policy in the footnotes section D of WP:No original research; I can't find the original discussion but interviews are listed as primary sources in that footnote and it links to the Noticeboard take on news sources.4meter4 (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the linked policy footnote. I'm not seeing anything there that would suggest that a feature/profile piece published by an independent new sources that contains quotes from interviews with the subjects of the article would qualify as a primary source and constitute "original research" for our purposes here on Wikipedia. Even if an independent news source published a transcript of an interview it conducted with a subject perhaps just with a short intro, I don't think that qualifies either. If a company or university conducted an an internal interview of some member of its organization and put that document in their archives, okay, that's a primary source. But that's not what we're dealing with in this nominated article. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why interviews, even in something like The New York Times, are considered primary sources is because they are not fact checked in the way that non-interview publications get fact checked. Journalist routinely publish interview material without independently fact checking the truth of that material. Reporting on what people say/claim is very different than asserting/verifying what is said is true. As a result, the type of independent editorial oversight required to be considered a WP:SECONDARY source just isn't there and the source is a WP:PRIMARY source. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This AfD was opened 13 hours after User:Joeykai opened a proposal to move an article created by the nominator on harpsichordist Anthony Jennings on grounds that the harpsichordist was not the primary target. I try to assume good faith, but the coincidence certainly raises questions about whether this AfD has an ulterior motive. Cbl62 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. That discussion did make me aware of the article, which in turn did make me look at the sources. But I think the fact that I took the time to put together a lengthy source analysis, and the fact that I am an AFD patroller who actively participates in AFDs (I've commented on probably a few thousand AFDs perhaps over 5,000 at this point in my editing history) on a regular basis as a volunteer (often rescuing articles) would indicate that I am acting in good faith. I am certainly not making any arguments I wouldn't normally make at an AFD. Further, I was upfront about my thoughts about this article and stated my opinions about its notability. The notability tag I placed was reverted so I took it here and did the work of the source analysis. In short I followed our procedures in good faith. @Cbl62 I'll further point out that I consider your bad faith notice a form of WP:CANVASING to bias the outcome of the move discussion and this AFD. You could have neutrally placed a notice and let people draw their own conclusions, but now its hard to unring that bell. 4meter4 (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, I think Cbl62's accusation of a "bad faith" nomination is warranted, but I see that you've put a canvassing warning on Cbl's use talk page. Where did he place notices about this AfD? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't. This notice is canvassing for the move discussion at Talk:Anthony Jennings#Requested move 24 December 2022. It also negatively impacts this AFD. It would be nice if people WP:AGF rather than placing non-neutral notices that are attempting to impact community discussion and the process of building consensus. Considering the number of editors already disagreeing with me, was it really necessary to try and impugn my character? We can disagree over whether or not interviews count towards GNG without making it un-necessarily personal. 4meter4 (talk)

This "note" at 17:54? That's a local comment referencing a related issue, not a notice. You should retract this spurious accusation of canvassing. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it a non-neutral notification of the move discussion. How else am I supposed to look at it? It's going to drive editors with a certain point of view there with an already negative bias towards me on a personal level, and it's going to make it impossible for me to feel like the opinion I put forward is going to receive any sort of neutral evaluation or fair consideration. In short it has completely tainted the neutrality of move discussion. It did exactly what canvassing intends to do.4meter4 (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11 The fact that you yourself have now commented at that move discussion proves my point. Your vote in the move discussion was clearly the result of this canvassing notification.4meter4 (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, well, you probably could have made more friends here if you didn't take a swipe at "editors in the sports area" above. That aside, this AFD and the related move discussion are slam dunks. They are tracking the close the way they should, any hard feelings between editors aside. Anthony Jennings, the New Zealand musician, is not so famous that he constitutes a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get side tracked on the New Zealand musician here. That should stay in the move discussion where it belongs as its not pertinent to this AFD. And you are correct that I probably made few friends here. To be fair, everybody was/is attacking me for daring to have an opinion different than there. I still think this particular person is not notable based on the evidence. I would feel convinced he is notable if we could just find a couple of sources that don't rely on interview material. That's just my opinion on SIGCOV as it applies to all articles, not just sports people.4meter4 (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I mean to write above "I don't think Cbl62's accusation of a 'bad faith' nomination is warranted, but..." Jweiss11 (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's worth considering that your accusation of canvassing is likely to bring as much or more attention to the move discussion as Cbl's comment. I had already commented here, but then I saw your warning on his talk page, which is on my watchlist, as he and I are longtime collaborators on college football content. Is this a reverse Streisand effect? :) Jweiss11 (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I did not and do not accuse User:4meter4 of bad faith. I was simply noting that the coincidence in timing between their move vote and AfD nomination raised questions. I have read 4meter4's response (above) and take them at their word. 4meter4 is an experienced editor and appears to have made the nomination in good faith. At the same time, I note that 4meter4's aspersions about sport editors ("This just re-affirms my experience that editors in the sports area consistently ignore policies widely applied and upheld elsewhere") did not exactly assume good faith. I suggest we all stop bickering, assume good faith, and let others weigh in on the discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Yes I admit, I could have held that opinion to myself for the sake of cordial conversation. I was feeling a bit ganged up on and let it get to me.4meter4 (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG with the significant coverage found by Cbl62. Sources do no get disqualified due to having interview parts if there is otherwise information on the subject in them. While interview parts of these sources are WP:PRIMARY, there is enough written in them by the author about the subject for them to count towards passing GNG in my opinion. Alvaldi (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regardless of the OP's disdain for those of us who are active in this content area, I agree that the article passes GNG due to the significant coverage shown above. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The idea that newspaper articles which contain interview material are necessarily non-independent is both ridiculous and completely unsupported by any WP policy I have read, including those linked above in this discussion. Jennings meets NBASIC based on the references in the article now, and the additional sources provided by Cbl62 just clinch it. Hatman31 (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. It’s clear I am of a lone opinion here. As such, I am withdrawing the nomination.4meter4 (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2022 (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 Russian Guild of Film Critics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Guild of Film Critics for Best Foreign Actress[edit]

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

Wholly sourced by primary sources. Has been tagged for some time without improvement, was redirected, but that was reverted. Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Russian Guild of Film Critics unless sufficient sources are found in Russian. Mccapra (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Russian Guild of Film Critics, per Mccapra. — Hunter Kahn 18:22, 28 December 2022 (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Highlord[edit]

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

I can only find routine announcements about this band, and they're mostly in metal-rules.com, where I can't find any information about editorial policy. (It only figures once in WP:RSN where somebody asked about it but wasn't answered). ColinFine (talk) 12:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found for the band. Not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 12:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wildwood (restaurant)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No indication of being notable. References are routine coverage and local news. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:Del4, WP:DEL14 scope_creep^Talk 12:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets notability per numerous references, awards, and sourced details. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Obviously a notable topic. Nominator seems to be targeting me and not even googling topics before jumping to AfD (?) I'd like to focus on content and not editor behavior, but how many times do I need to ask someone to leave me alone? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. In-depth coverage in the statewide publication The Oregonian, Wiley publisher's book Pacific Northwest Wining and Dining, and in Nation's Restaurant News completely satisfy GNG and NCORP. $ɱ$ (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even if all the Fodor's and Explorer's Guide and Insiders' Guide and Sasquatch Books and Eater (website) and Moon Guide listings/reviews in the article are discounted, and then the cookbooks, and then finally we take away the several items from weeklies and Portland Monthly, we have these following independent sources:
- 2011 The Oregonian, review by regional newspaper (currently used as a source)
- 2003 Nation's Restaurant News, award and review by national publication (currently used as a source)
- 2007 Pacific Northwest Wining and Dining, book (Wiley) (currently used as a source)
- "An Oregon Trail Of Portland Treats", Susan Hamlin, The New York Times, June 28, 1998 [10]. Wildwood is one of the restaurants used as an example of how "Portland can now add restaurants to its list of attractions"; several hundred words are dedicated to Wildwood alone.
- "Portland's Trailblazers", John Mariani, Esquire, January 1995 [11], similar to the NYT source in terms of putting the restaurant on a short list of places forming Portland cuisine
- More examples of the restaurant being singled out in an article covering Portland cuisine include "Portland's Restaurant Renaissance" in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 18, 1995; "A Taste of Portland" in the Orange County Register, November 1, 1998; "Gray Skies, Bright City: Imaginative Tastes Light up Corner of Portland, Oregon" in the Boston Globe, April 13, 1995; and on and on which I don't have the time to format links for, nor do I think it's necessary at this point. Just as a rough metric of its notability, "Cory Schreiber wildwood portland" on ProQuest produces over 300 hits in the major two Portland-area newspapers, The Columbian (Washington State side of the river, published since 1890) and The Oregonian.

Quoting from the GNG bible, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. These surely meet this bar and the article meets WP:GNG. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anticipating an objection that NCORP trumps GNG in this case: no. This is clearly of cultural, not business importance to all the reliable sources cited above. The imposition of rigid NCORP guidelines to restaurants was in fact one of the points of contention in the failed 2018 NCORP RfC: specifically its impact on award-winning restaurants was brought up by several commenters. Even before those objections were voiced, the proposer also added a carve-out for orgs shown "to have made a culturally significant impact", so if this D rationale is to be taken at face value, it goes far beyond the 2018 proposal which was deemed a bridge too far. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And anticipating a reiteration that NCORP applies everywhere all the time no matter the 2018 RfC, here's a recent AfD in which consensus was not reached for a business (a hotel) with cultural ramifications: according to the closer "there isn't consensus about how to apply SNGs to this article, let alone the broader contention of SNGs vs GNG (especially in the case of NCORP)" (emphasis mine). ☆ Bri (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. You can check my past record, but this does meet NCORP, regional, and even global (I would argue Esquire is a global magazine) coverage. Again I need you to perform detaled source analysis because your unusual issue with restaurant articles shows. And before you say this isn't showing good faith, this is what, the 3rd I've seen just within the last 7 days.

Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Seems 2 Funny[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As the original AfD said, "Tiktokker BLP with lots of references, but they seem to be mostly churnalism or puff-pieces." Fails GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I find are streaming sites, no news of any kind. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in terms of actual coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeaneen Carlino[edit]

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

Was deleted through prod last year, so cannot prod. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to pass GNG, and does not meet NARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources found, nothing in Jstor, Gnews only has a few listings where her art has appeared. Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another "Chicana Latina Art and Artists student submission" that remains on the course list even though it is WP:TOOSOON. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Yesenia Alvarado (2nd nomination) If AlmaLopezGDA is going to continue teaching this class they should PLEASE take note of these deletions-- WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe sources are adequate; they may not be top-flight, however.Mwinog2777 (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all of the sources cited are written by the subject (e.g. self-submitted "artist profiles"), or are Q&A type interviews with her on blogs. There are no secondary sources here, and no reviews of her work in independent, reliable sources. As such, it's not much different from a CV. Agree that it is WP:TOOSOON for a standalone Wikipedia article focused on the artist. If the artist herself or someone closely associated with her is reading this, I would strongly advise reading WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, which explains why autobiographies and CVs are not allowed on Wikipedia, and why you may actually not want to have a Wikipedia article in the first place. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked ProQuest, and only found one brief mention about an event she attended. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2022 (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 XMule. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LMule[edit]

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources. Mdggdj (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to xMule: This article and the xMule and aMule articles have similar summary histories of project evolution, which seems excessive. I am not seeing evidence that the lMule phase was notable in itself, so a redirect to the more substantial coverage at xMule could serve as a decent WP:ATD. AllyD (talk) 10:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per AllyD. Pavlor (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (not redirect) to xMule, incorporating the facts about lMule that are not currently stated there. The "redirect" WP:ATD should be reserved for cases where there is a specific reason not to merge the article content. Modernponderer (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2022 (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!} 07:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FlagShip[edit]

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources. Mdggdj (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can’t find any RIS. Mccapra (talk) 07:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2022 (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. Please work on the Draft version and submit it to WP:AFC for review when you feel it is ready. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joginder Singh Vedanti[edit]

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

Joginder Singh Vedanti

This article was created in article space by an editor who appears to have a conflict of interest. It was then moved to draft space by User:Onel5969 with instructions not to move it back to mainspace without review. The editor then created a copy of it in article space, thus ignoring the intent of the instruction. The article should be deleted so that the draft can be reviewed for neutrality. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sikhism, and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a conflict of interest. I am not paid, nor do I have any relation with the deceased Joginder Singh Vedanti. The article has been written using reliable sources. I do not see the necessity of moving the article to the draft space, as it can be checked without the move.

I have just now read that User:Onel5969 instructed me not move the article into mainspace. I apologies as I did not read it before. 1forever&ever (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and retain the draft. There is an obvious connection between the article's creator and the subject.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and retain draft per nom. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Jathedar of the Akal Takht is an notable position because the Jathedar is the head of all Sikhs of the world so it is an notable office and their office holder are also notable but this article has conflict of interest so this article needs to be draftify and republish via article for creation. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 20:01, 29 December 2022 (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!} 06:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Deves[edit]

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

I nominate this reluctantly as I am on the fence as to whether the article's subject meets WP:GNG as the majority of media coverage about her coincided with the 2022 Australian federal election. However I am confidant the article fails the requirements under WP:POLITICIAN as being an unelected candidate doesn't equate to notability. - GA Melbourne (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Australia. - GA Melbourne (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As article creator, to say that Deves isn't notable is difficult to say. WP:POLITICIAN states that unelected candidates do not equate to notability, not that they are not notable. What I think WP: POLITICIAN is trying to say is that articles about unelected politicians do not qualify for articles immediately, instead having to meet other guidelines such as WP:GNG. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the number of articles and profiles. Yes they do not get the automatic pass based on being elected but there are multiple significant articles about them (and the impact that their selection had). Gusfriend (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [12] offers significant coverage. This quote from the Guardian shows she was one of the most significant candidates of the 2022 election: "Deves had more mentions across metro and regional print and online news than any Liberal frontbencher, bar Morrison." [13] shows she has received media coverage months after the 2022 election. Steelkamp (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple news sources about her work, passes WP:GNG CT55555(talk) 15:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NPOL is a positive test, satisfying the criteria establishes presumed notability. Not satisfying the criteria simply indicates there is no presumed notability, not a reason for deletion. Sourcing in the article demonstrates passing of the BASIC/GNG per Steelkamp and Gusfriend. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NPOL states that Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. IMO WP:GNG or WP:BASIC is passed, 1, 2, 3 clearly meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS, as they cover in detail biographical details of Deves and her views. Additionally, IMHO this is not a case of WP:BIO1E, Deves is continuously discussed in fairly recent articles and books, e.g., this piece published in Nov 2022, this piece in Dec 2022 (though it might be debatably WP:RS, but the last RSN discussion appeared to have a rough consensus that it's a generally reliable WP:BIASED source), and this (published in Dec 2022). VickKiang (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all other reviewers. Affirmatively passes WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm generally hesitant on candidates who are exclusively notable because of their campaign (WP:RECENTISM), but for some reason this candidate has received a disproportionate amount of media attention, providing far-and-away WP:SIGCOV. We can re-assess further in the future. Curbon7 (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per all of the above commenters and WP:SNOW. Sal2100 (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morris Mills (musician)[edit]

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

Musician who meets neither WP:NMUSIC nor WP:GNG. The article has been looking like this for several years; I cut away a bunch of advertising and looked at the article history to see if it had ever been reliably sourced and/or had any claims to notability. It hasn't. I searched for sources without finding anything in independent and secondary sources other than trivial mentions. bonadea contributions talk 10:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Illinois. bonadea contributions talk 10:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only ref for the entire article is of dubious reliability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2022 (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. If you believe this article should be renamed, please discuss it on the article talk page or Be Bold! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike McCready (music entrepreneur)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG ---FMSky (talk) 08:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. FMSky (talk) 08:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As there appears to be significant coverage of Mike McCredy, such as in the articles referenced, "Annals Of Entertainment The Formula" By Malcolm Gladwell and coverage in the article, "How Many Hits." KeepItGoingForward (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Nebraska. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When evaluated under the guidelines at WP:NBUSINESSPERSON and related rules on companies, he appears to qualify for WP because his company was examined by Harvard Business Review and some other big players. The article is currently dependent on various unreliable sources that should be removed, but there is enough for a stub article. Meanwhile, he is cursed with the same name as a much more famous person, leading to an awkward article title. Perhaps the title should be moved to "... (businessman)" per Disambig conventions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears in multiple tier 1 news articles for being a musician, having a successful record company and producing, and even featured in the Huffington Post as a contributing blogger. So definitely falls under WP:BLP Wikipedia Editor (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spigen[edit]

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

Nothing in the entry or my WP:BEFORE suggests this company meets WP:NCOMPANY. Some of their products get an occasional review, but the company does not attract significant coverage. PS. It is WP:LISTED (KOSDAQ). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, South Korea, and California. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wrote the article so I'm not going to vote either way because I can't really remember why I felt it notable 5 years ago but I did do some brief browsing and found some reputable seeming in-depth translated news pieces about them, I'll let someone else decide. Forbes Korea, Pulse, a bland bit of real estate journal. korea probably has more but alas, I don't read Korean. EoRdE6^(Talk) 03:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 18 December 2022 (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!} 06:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, some of the products have reviews but there are no sources that meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:46, 28 December 2022 (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!} 06:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yogi Coudoux[edit]

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

WP:1E. Fails WP:GNG. Has no sources that revolve around the subject other than the one media feat. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and France. AllyD (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom. Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG. 142.119.127.36 (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2022 (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 10:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ambalamukkile Visheshangal[edit]

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

Not notable unreleased film. Previously de-proded by article creator. DareshMohan (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how do we know it’s unreleased? Mccapra (talk) 07:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: Because there are no reliable/any film reviews (despite having a notable actor) and because film databases say so (any minor film would have been updated on the databases). Either way, the current sources do not establish notability. DareshMohan (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 18 December 2022 (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!} 06:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFF DonaldD23 talk to me 14:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus here is to Keep and Split this article. I can close this discussion as Keep but in terms of reorganization of the article content on to different pages, interested editors should start a discussion about this on the article talk page. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles by geographic location[edit]

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

Objectionable on two counts. First, it is far too broad: to be complete, this would have to include every single significant land battle in history. Second, it is organized by current country, even if the battle took place before the country existed. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
"too broad" -> broad articles exist on wikipedia, see "Lists of songs". Moreover, similar articles exist such as List of battles which is sorted by era (see "Lists of battles")
"organized by current country" -> That is the point of this article yes.
If the lenght of the article become too important then splitting it by country is possible. Maxime12346 (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Let's assume, just for argument's sake, there are five significant battles a year (a ludicrously low number for the entire world). Since the year 0 AD, that would be over 10K battles. That broad enough for ya? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. There is already Lists of battles. Like songs, there is no List of songs. Also, who in the world is going to look for the Battle of Megiddo (15th century BC) in the Israel section? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Split - While I agree with @Maxime12346 that broad articles exist, Lists of Songs is very well organized and is not painful to navigate. It should not be deleted completely, but split into several articles to make it easier to read and edit. Idevjoe (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split by continent or country. The article should be also be renamed to List of battles by continent or country. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Split by location and era if necessary. dml (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly split by continent. Lists are not required to be complete/exhaustive. My very best wishes (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2022 (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 Outline of transport#Animal-powered transport. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of animal-powered transport[edit]

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

Does not provide much, if any, encyclopedic value. Basically, it is just lists without sourcing or context. Requesting a possible deletion and redirect to Pack animal, of course rescuing any useful information. TNstingray (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Outline of transport // Timothy :: talk 00:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Transportation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Pinging @TNstingray and TimothyBlue: to see the responses below. — The Transhumanist 13:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Pack animal isn't a suitable redirect for this outline, first, because that article isn't an outline, and second, because it doesn't represent most of the modes of transport on this list, which are vehicles pulled by animals, while a pack animal carries extra weight on its back. The title of this outline hits its mark well and is a subject worth navigating (see below). — The Transhumanist 13:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The nominator appears to be complaining that this article is a stub, and about other points that are just plain mistaken, as follows:

    1) Outlines are comprised of lists

    2) Outlines do not include sources, because they are navigation aids that list and link to Wikipedia articles pertaining to the subject

    3) As with all outlines, context is provided by the relation of each topic to the subject of the outline -- as conveyed by its hierarchical structure and where each topic is located on it -- see tree structure, of which outlines are a type

Also, we don't generally delete outlines... we fix them, unless the topic itself does not exist. But, the nominator hasn't pointed out anything actually wrong with it, or that violates guidelines pertaining to outlines. Looking around WP, there is a great deal on this subject -- there is ample need for this navigation aid, and much potential for expansion (it could use a "History of" section, for example).

Another important point is that, at the time of this posting, there is no regular article titled "Animal-powered transport" and that title redirects to this outline! Deleting this outline will remove the only article we have on this significant parent topic.

Please vote to keep this valuable navigation aid and informative list. Another thing to keep in mind is that the Outline of transport is already huge, and doesn't need this outline added to it -- it includes a link to this outline, for the sake of completion.

This outline is part of Wikipedia's content system -- to see its placement, visit Wikipedia:Contents/Outlines.

Thank you. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   13:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not familiar with how outlines work on Wikipedia, but the quality of my nominated page and your example are both severely lacking, and the information seems like it would be presented much more effectively as an infobox, but this could just be my lack of familiarity with the outline system. Maybe this is something that needs to be discussed in a different place, but I find the lack of sourcing to be problematic. For this specific example, it lists moose and turtles as animals domesticated for transport... sounds highly suspect to me, and I have not been able to find sourcing supporting these. With this new context, I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that its current format appears to be problematic. TNstingray (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @TNstingray: Perhaps it can be fixed. What do you find problematic about the current format? — The Transhumanist 06:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  As of now, the outline is just presented as a somewhat random list of animals and vehicles. Some of these have information attached to them that is not referenced in the linked article. I guess I'm just not a fan of the outline format in general, as it seems to just be a less efficient infobox. As of now, with no sourcing, there is no way to create any sort of inclusion criteria as one would with actual articles in mainspace. I can't find anything about moose used as transportation, but what is stopping somebody from adding it back later, since sources aren't required? TNstingray (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @TNstingray: The way inclusion verification of entries in all navigation aids has been handled over the years is...
  ... that each topic's article explains the nature of the topic; it would be unnecessary duplication of effort — and an impossibly huge endeavor — to prove in all outlines, categories, indexes, navigation footers, navigation sidebars, etc. that each entry belonged in it. Therefore, we leave it to the articles on the topics linked to to provide proof of inclusion, and verification carries through the link to those articles. If proof of inclusion is not there in the topic article, the topic should be removed from the relevant navigation aids, unless a citation is not required per WP:V. In most cases, you will find the inclusion criteria in the lead of the topic's article. Such as "Alabama is a state of the United States", establishing its inclusion eligibility for a good number of navigation aids on the US, even though that statement does not include a citation in the Alabama article (as the statement is not likely to be challenged, per WP:V). — The Transhumanist 11:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This may be the worst outline I've ever seen here, and I'm not a big fan of outlines. There's a list of pack animals and then there's a list of vehicles like the omnibus that can be pulled by animals, with no explanations or organization. The latter largely duplicates Horse-drawn vehicle. Some of those vehicles could be pulled by cattle, but I broadly don't see the purpose of this as an outline with a bunch of context-free links. Reywas92^Talk 17:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Reywas92: What kind of explanations and organization would you like to see? — The Transhumanist 06:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Reywas92: What did you mean by "context-free links"? — The Transhumanist 06:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~Redirect to Outline of transport. I do not see any reason to have this forked off of the outline of transport article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly-sourced, with no references. At least needs a rewrite, we need some sort of discussion around this concept rather just showing a wall of text. Oaktree b (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (no merge needed) to Outline of transport#Animal-powered transport, an existing section, as a valid search term. Keep the core list concise. czar 06:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outline of transport#Animal-powered transport, and I think starting a non-outline Animal-powered transport article would be a good idea. "Pepper" @ 00:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Outline of transport under Outline of transport#Animal-powered transport, and redirect Outline of animal-powered transport to [[Outline of transport per WP:OVERLAP and WP:REDUNDANT. The 'outline' can be outlined in that article, I personally do not think it needs its own article per se. waddie96 ★ (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to Keep article especially after the nomination was withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of restaurants in New Jersey[edit]

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

Unnecessary list; redundant to the NJ restaurant navigation template box which was recently created. Tinton5 (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tinton5 (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, it was useful when there was no navigation box, now that we have one, it's duplication. Oaktree b (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, the editing guideline that covers the topic, lists and navigation boxes "should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." and that "Therefore, the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." Sources can -- and should ---be added to the lost article, as well as greater context about the restaurants, but BOTH should remain, per policy, as there is no policy-based argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing gained by destroying it. Some find it easier to read in list format. A list also allows additional information such as what year it was founded, and what type of food it serves, to be added. People are more likely to search for something based on the food type than just the location alone. Dream Focus 18:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just put all the entries into the table format and added in some additional information to make the list far more useful than a category or navigational template. Dream Focus 18:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Grorp (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of that are you referring to? Every entry links to its own article, except one which links to part of another article which has a section for it. Dream Focus 13:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As there is a high bar for inclusion on this list (namely, the restaurant has to pass NCORP), that means that no way this list will include most restaurants in NJ (or for other states), avoiding it being a directory (which is meant to be more exhaustive and complete) and thus is simply a fair list. --Masem (t) 13:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, I would immediately strip the three columns "Reservations", "Dress code", and "Alcohol served" as those make this appear more as a directory than a list. Masem (t) 13:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I was thinking about whether or not that should be there. I removed them. Dream Focus 16:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tinton5: @Oaktree b: Do you still feel the way after seeing the changes I made to the article? Dream Focus 07:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to Withdraw, based on changes made by above user. Thank you for making these improvements. Tinton5 (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beiqi 346-class crane ship[edit]

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

Cursory English Google search turns up no supporting sources. Single provided source is a page of a forum thread that is an enthusiast (?) listing of PLAN ship classes (not WP:RS.) - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 02:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and China. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 02:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are found in Chinese. Mccapra (talk) 07:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dongdao-class reefer ship[edit]

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

Cursory Google search in English doesn't turn up supporting sources. Single provided source is a page of a forum thread, which aside from not being WP:RS also does not seem to contain information pertaining to the article topic. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 02:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and China. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 02:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are found in Chinese. Mccapra (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2022 (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!} 06:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under the sultry sky[edit]

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

Currently doesn't meet WP:GNG, with the first source most likely a passing mention (from what I can tell from translating the reference) and the other being the movie on Youtube. I have listed it here instead of PROD because I wouldn't be surprised if there were more Russian or Azerbaijani sources, although I couldn't find any English ones. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Azerbaijan, and Russia. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 03:09, 27 December 2022 (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!} 05:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elastic properties of the elements (data page)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of data. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. None of WP:INDISCRIMINATE checks fulfilled; nor any check named by nom. Also: the list, a data page actually, is well structured, sourced, and highly specific (being by chemical element). Possible improvements do not relate to (other or any) AfD reasons. -DePiep (talk) 10:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Required to reference the element infoboxes (see List of data references for chemical elements). Double sharp (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per DePiep and Double sharp – well-sourced cohesive list, not indiscriminate, and supplies information to >80 {{Infobox element}} templates. A standalone list such as this provides encyclopedic information without cluttering the main articles. ^Complex/_Rational 17:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't pages like this now belong on Wikidata, where they can be used by many different language projects? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not an indiscriminate collection of data, but a list with important data. My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per DePiep and Double sharp. This is a list of important data. ¹⁴¹ Pr 10:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per DePiep and Double sharp. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Zodac. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zodac[edit]

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

Fictional character. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. All I can confirm is that such a fictional character existed in the show (there are plot summaries here and here) and that some action toys were made after him. Reception section in the article is an embarrassing listicle mention ("Comic Book Resources listed the character as part of He-Man: 15 Most Powerful Masters of the Universe."). I am afraid that's not enough to keep this as a stand-alone aricle. Additionally, the article is poorly referenced, so WP:OR/WP:V is an issue too (there are some very ORish, unreferenced attempts at analysis like "The mystery surrounding Zodac is heavily exacerbated by his use in the DC Comics, which features him acting as a neutral character who seemingly oversees the whole conflict and serves to maintain balance between the two sides of good and evil" - which if sourced could suggest notability, but I fear it's pure OR; at least I couldn't find anything reliable to verify this). The best WP:ATD I can think of is a redirect to the List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters where he has a section. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a lot of sustained coverage, even if it's not great. Redirect to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Zodac where he is mentioned, and someone can merge stuff from history if desired. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Zodac, as suggested. As described by the nom, the contents of this article are pretty poor and not appropriate for merger, but the character already has a pretty extensive section on the main character list, so a redirect would be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The third DVD volume of the 2002 cartoon series has a lengthy featurette with the show creators about this character's design and role. I believe it also compared/contrasted him with the original incarnation, but I haven't watched it since 2008. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with his section at List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allen J. Lauer[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Coverage is either primary or very tangential mention in articles about businesses he worked at. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 02:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 02:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Justi yaya 04:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or redirect to Varian, Inc.. Jdcooper (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing specific about him other than being named in routine business announcements. Lamona (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2022 (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!} 01:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Woodley[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A recent event does not automatically make the subject notable. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Iowa. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Classic BLP1E, at least for right now. It made WaPo, so it's not unreasonable that somebody started this article. Is he notable for other things? Jclemens (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The video is perhaps notable, it's got many articles about it, the person is just a news reporter. Nothing found for him as a person. I don't think he needs an article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or repurpose - Keep, or rewrite to article about the video. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment - Or, redirect again to KWWL (TV). --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:BLP1E. MB 03:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An amusing event but nothing that would make the reporter notable. Could be mentioned on the station's page, at best. Lamona (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2022 (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 the content can be moved to another project, let me know and I can temporarily restore it so it can be moved over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of kanji by concept[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There are tens of thousands of kanji, so a complete list of kanji by concept would need to list all of them. Mucube (talk • contribs) 00:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and Japan. Mucube (talk • contribs) 00:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a dictionary. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:55, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Haven't seen a dictionary organized in this manner. As a student of Japanese, I find this useful. It is true that no list is complete, but why would we not simply provide the usual disclaimer? As a student of Japanese, I find this useful as it organizes those many many kanji into an thematic explanation that makes them easier to remember Elinruby (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be useful, but it still doesn't belong on Wikipedia, so we should probably move the content to Wiktionary as an appendix. Mucube (talk • contribs) 03:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or cross-wikify: this is out-of-scope content. I don't deny that it's useful, but it's not appropriate for a Wikipedia list. We have Lists of English words by certain themes, but (at least in the policy-compliant lists) only themes that are specific enough to have clear selection criteria and reliable sources commenting on the words as a category. In contrast, there are no sources here and the concept is too broad. Wiktionary may make some use of it, or I could see a Wikibook using an index like this, but it's not appropriate on Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary list. NavjotSR (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of kanji by stroke count. - Manifestation (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with some regret. This list does seem useful, but this is outside the scope of Wikipedia. Fortunately, when googling list of kanji by concept, we can find a number of similar resources, as well as two forks of this very article. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2022 (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 jōyō kanji. Just a note to NReitzel, this article has not been deleted, it has been turned into a redirect to a related article. You've received some good feedback here on other articles that might be of use but the content on this page is still present so even though a redirect is less "usable" than the original article, all of information is still there in the page history if you want to review it. Thank you for your support to all of Wikimedia's projects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of kanji by stroke count[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There are tens of thousands of kanji, so a complete list of kanji by stroke count would need to list all of them. Mucube (talk • contribs) 00:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and Japan. Mucube (talk • contribs) 00:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of jōyō kanji, which can already be sorted by stroke count and has a clear criterion for inclusion. Dekimasuよ! 04:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: is stroke count an interesting linguistic feature of kanji? Perhaps sources could be found for a list with better selection criteria, like the kanji with fewer than 5 strokes or more than 30 strokes? — Bilorv (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stroke count is the traditional way of sorting the list of kanji. --ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the dictionaries carried by nearly every non-agrarian person in Japan, Stroke count is the primary way that kanji is referenced. I've gone to this list countless times in the last few years, and I personally would sorely miss it. Wikimedia is my personal charity for donations at Amazon - I donate every time I buy something, and I tend to get a little tired of people (I'm talking to You, Administrators) coming up with reasons why some fractional piece of human knowledge should Not be included here. Surely a written language has a more deserving place here than, (say) an article on Tatooine. Are you trying to compete for eyeballs with Tiktoc? Didn't the AOL saga serve as an adequate cautionary tale? Norm Reitzel (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NReitzel: I have no interest in Star Wars but the references under Tatooine#References show that it is a notable topic. If you can provide a similar number and quality of references for kanji by stroke count then I'm sure nobody will have an issue keeping this list.

Content is not kept on Wikipedia if it is useful, but if it meets our limited selection criteria; dictionary content does not, and is hosted at our sister project Wiktionary instead (if the community there want it). Decisions are made by the community (of whom administrators are a fraction) and only carried out by administrators. As your donation money (in overwhelming likelihood) does not go to anybody who is reading this—although it goes to Wiktionary as much as it goes to Wikipedia—I don't think any of us will complain if you choose to donate elsewhere. — Bilorv (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NReitzel: If you would've created this list, then I could understand that you're feeling bummed out. But according to its history, you never once edited this page. Besides, there is nothing on this list that isn't also at List of jōyō kanji. If you press the arrows in the "Strokes" column, the kanji will be sorted accordingly. There are many other pages on the internet that list Japanese kanji by stroke count. And if you're really going to miss this page that much, then you can still view it on the Internet Archive.
Your monetary donations to Wikimedia are very much appreciated and I'm sure they come to good use. Take care, Manifestation (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would complain if I had to take my money elsewhere, Wikimedia does an outstanding thing. I'm not feeling "bummed out" -- to the contrary, I just use this list daily and I would miss it. And no, it's not a dictionary - nor is this list a dictionary`, it's an INDEX and as such has a particular value all its own. Reference books would be easier if all that pesty stuff at the end were left out. What they do is make the actual reference more accessible and more useful. If you want to replace his article with a link to the list of jōyȯ- kanji, that is reasonable, but speaking for myself, since I have only been studying to read kanji for a couple decades, it will be more difficult. This index is styled after O'Neil's "Essential Kanji" (the book) which is where I began my journey, so you can see why it will be missed. If you delete this articlke, I will use a differemt reference and no hard feelings. Norm Reitzel (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of jōyō kanji, or perhaps create a disambiguation page that includes links to Wiktionary, like Appendix:Mandarin Pinyin and Appendix:Mandarin Frequency lists. - Manifestation (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Norm Reitzel (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of kanji by concept. - Manifestation (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your considered comments. I will support wikimedia until my death — and after, if possible. Norm Reitzel (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1994 NECBL season[edit]

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

Very limited sourcing, almost exclusively reliant on primary sources (many of which are dead links), likely fails WP:GNG. Merge any notable content to New England Collegiate Baseball League if not already present. Or Draftify until proper sourcing and articles are not incomplete. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge notable content to New England Collegiate Baseball League. I couldn't find sufficient sources that weren't primary. Suonii180 (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:56, 25 December 2022 (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.