Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 04 December 06 >

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 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! 23:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reighann Olivero[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which Tuvalu footballers with Wikipedia articles fail WP:GNG? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK since I last checked it appears they've gone, but should I nominate Lorenzo Capicchioni, Simone Franciosi, Samuel Pancotti, Pietro Sopranzi and Mattia Ceccaroli for deletion, as they've only played in friendlies for San Marino against Saint Lucia? Not much references for them so they're about as notable as the Gibraltar women's footballers. Not trying to be whataboutist, just saying that if this is the new rule then I'll go nominate them for deletion as they also fail the notablity guidelines. VampireKilla (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If no actual significant coverage of them exists in Sammarinese independent media then certainly they should all be sent to AfD. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VampireKilla: There's only three Tuvaluan football players with articles (one of which is only notable for his later political career) – most of them were deleted earlier this year. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:09, 9 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! 23:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tighe[edit]

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

ELs on page consist of Jeff Buckley's official site (or a fansite? Not clear), a purely primary interview, and two definitely unreliable pages in IMDb and LastFM. Only other coverage I found were interviews and unreliable sites focusing solely on Tighe's relationship with Buckley, and that's after pushing through a bunch of results about other people with the name which came first. No appearance of notability beyond that. Could redirect to either Jeff Buckley, So Real (Jeff Buckley song), or Grace (Jeff Buckley album), though none seem any more viable than the others so perhaps a delete would be easier; I'm in support of either move. QuietHere (talk) 23:22, 5 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! 23:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Herman U. S. A.[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. Found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing else was found to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 5 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 Withdraw. (non-admin closure) Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

W Wish[edit]

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

I did a WP:BEFORE check and didn’t find any reliable sources. Most likely fails WP:GNG and definitely fails WP:V. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 22:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Google Books, Scholar, and especially News Archives, it doesn’t seem like there is any mention anywhere. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 22:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I found a review on THEManime which I think is reliable (they have editorial controls, not user reviews). I'd expect there'd be more sources in Japanese; there was a game and an anime series. Ja wiki article is about a game more than anime and is poorly referenced (has one magazine source with a short quote about a song from the game). I know that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is a poor argument, but we have one decent source, and again, I'd be surprised in in all of Japan's magazines about anime and games there weren't at least one review of the game or the show. And we won't find such sources through Googling in English, we need a Japanese speaker to do a BEFORE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I did some googling in Japanese, and found some stuff. Famitsu reviewed the game in Weekly Famitsu #825, and you can partially access the review through their old website's game database. Game Watch has a report on a presentation on the anime that touches a little on its production. JAWP cites a review of the music from Anison Magazine. Of these, Famitsu and Anison seem the most useful, and it's a shame we can't access either fully/directly - but combined with the THEM review, I think this should meet GNG, if just barely. I'm also noticing that the ANN encyclopedia (itself not an RS) lists titles of the anime in various languages. It's possible we could find more by searching for the Chinese and Korean titles, although I personally have basically no knowledge in either language.--AlexandraIDV 13:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is the case then I’m Withdrawing. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:11, 6 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! 23:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shiba Russell[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per this discussion at RfD. I have no opinion on the subject, and am completely neutral on the outcome. CycloneYoris talk! 22:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Journalism, News media, and Television. CycloneYoris talk! 22:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:JOURNALIST. However, I just want to state that I am willing and would be happy to change my opinion if someone out there can find something that bring this above notability thresholds. As it stands now, I don't think it does, and from what I could ascertain from a quick search, I am not certain that the threshold can be met at this time. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Apparently I am the one who redirected it in 2016 and while I don't remember this article, looking into it more I can see why I thought it didn't warrant a standalone article and did a WP:BLAR. Nothing really seems to have changed since then, the article does not appear to have the sourcing required to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, and likewise does not meet WP:JOURNALIST. - Aoidh (talk) 08:58, 11 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Toti[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a political officeholder at the county level, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, politicians at the local level of office are not "inherently" notable enough for inclusion, and get to have Wikipedia articles only if they can show enough substance and sourcing to mount a credible argument that they're far more notable than most other people at that level of office -- but this shows nothing of the sort, and is just referenced to a couple of glancing namechecks of the subject's existence rather than any evidence of coverage that's substantively about him and his work.
Also, this was created in draftspace and got declined at AFC, but was then moved by its own creator with no attempt at improvement or resubmission for a second AFC review, which is not how the draft process works. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Africa. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet GNG, makes no claim that would meet NPOL as written regardless of source quality. signed, Rosguill talk 21:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete agree, not notable. I'm not even sure what he does based on the article and the lack of sources isn't helping. Oaktree b (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found a source mentioning Toti in regards to an assassination attempt in 2016 ([1]), but I do not think that it will somehow suffice to prove the person's notability. ThegaBolt (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Uhai (talk) 17:35, 12 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 is to Keep this article. Any problems that exist should be fixed by editors instead of deleting the article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of third-party involvement in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Allegations of third-party involvement in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The premise of this article is a giant MOS:ALLEGED and WP:WEIGHT violation. It portrays the Syrian mercenaries has an "accusation", when it has been verified by numerous sources. And the Kurdish militia are portrayed as a possibility, when that was thoroughly debunked (the Al-Monitor source clearly says "there is no direct evidence of this" and Komsomolskaya Pravda is a tabloid). Lots of important information in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war was removed entirely in order to create this article. That info is best off being restored and this Allegations article deleted; there was no discussion about splitting the article. Dallavid (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was created improperly and never transcluded to the log (or the article tagged) until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Truthfully, I separated this section into it's own article primarily because of how huge it is: it was roughly 78,000 bytes, making it one of the largest, if not THE largest, section in an article primarily about Armenia and Azerbaijan. If you want to remove content from unreliable sources (like tabloids), go right ahead, but if this info is gonna be added back to the main page, it needs to be summarized to not overshadow everything else. XTheBedrockX (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Second Nagorno-Karabakh War had a prose size north of 100 kB when the split occurred, which is more than enough to merit a split per WP:SPLITSIZE. If the "alleged" framing is a neutrality problem (no opinion on that question), it can be fixed by simply moving the article to Third-party involvement in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War (or something like that); other neutrality/sourcing issues can be resolved through the editing process and don't require deletion. I do think that the third-party section of the main article should be expanded a bit more (a couple of paragraphs or so) to implement WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, but that doesn't require reverting the split altogether. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For an article this long and very well sourced, I'll suggest that editors with concerns about some of the contents could fix them. Remember, deletion is not cleanup, so problematic text can be either removed or adjusted. Nythar (💬-❄️) 00:38, 9 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! 22:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dolau Hafod a Winllan[edit]

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

Proposed deletion with : "This is not the SSSI, which would correctly be "Dolau Hafod a Winllan", but additionally to being incorrectly titled, there is nothing to say about this that is not already said in List of SSSIs in Ceredigion. Dolau is "meadows" and this is not a legally recognised place, so not notable per WP:GEOLAND]. Any information about the SSSI in general can and should be on the page curating SSSI information." An editor moved the page to the correct name of the SSSI but another editor removed PROD saying: " It is a 'legally recognised place' - that's what an SSSI *is*. And GEOLAND also applies to named geographic features."

The reasoning is in error. The name of the SSSI merely describes the bound of an area of special scientific interest for some reason, and rarely maps to an exact recognised or named location. Over 12% of Wales is recorded as an SSSI, and this confers no legal status per WP:GEOLAND.

Furthermore the reasoning is in error because the name of the SSSI is not a name of a featured area. It is the name of two featured areas in close proximity. Meadow land and Winllan - a vineyard. Not a named vineyard, and not contiguous with the meadows. This is two separate locations treated together in an SSSI definition because they are geographically close and relate to the same matter of interest. OS data shows neither.

So there is clearly no automatic pass per WP:GEOLAND. The real question is whether any article can be written about this. Are there any secondary sources, treatments etc? WP:BEFORE turns up nothing. Wikipedia notability is about the question of whether a page can, in principle, be written about the subject. On this subject the answer to that appears to be no, and this fails WP:N for an article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MurrayGreshler, this is a redirect page. We don't want to redirect to a redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Sorry. MurrayGreshler (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final redirect. Any other possible redirect targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can't find anything specifically written about this sssi. JMWt (talk) 20:47, 5 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. There is an overwhelming consensus expressed for Keeping this article and the only editor supporting Delete was the nominator. I would have preferred more argumentation based in policy but I can't ignore the numbers here and those arguing Keep believe GNG is met. If this AFD is a sign of future deletion discussions on similar articles, please let there be fewer aspersions cast, especially against an entire WikiProject. If there is serious disagreement over how notability is assessed on the subject of roads, an RFC might be called for rather than arguing over differences of opinion at individual AFDs which can cause other editors to avoid participating in discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M1 (Durban)[edit]

M1 (Durban) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Significant article that has single low info reference that fails WP:V and WP:AUD and WP:SIGCOV. Continual pushback by editors who write road articles and refuse to reference properly. Looking to get M41 (Durban) and M25 (Durban) redirected as well. Originally redirect as part of WP:NPP review by concerted effort to revert. scope_creepTalk 19:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a major freeway in the region and an important mode of transport. It is clear the nominator did not give time for sources to be found or even look for them, but I will try to do so later today. To get the other matters out of the way: Continual pushback by editors who write road articles and refuse to reference properly. is poisoning the well and inappropriate for this discussion. And WP:NPP is not a trump card that allows any sort of behavior to be excused. --Rschen7754 19:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already I have found [2]. Also a lot of stories about highway deaths which might not have been notable otherwise, but combined with that story are relevant. --Rschen7754 19:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a procedural note, this AFD was mentioned here which is a violation of WP:CANVASS. --Rschen7754 19:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There has been a consistant and long term effort that was noticed in August as part of this years WP:NPP push, to bypass normal Wikipedia controls around correctly sourcing road articles, that is outside consensus. This articles was redirected by several page reviewers because it is incorrectly ref'd. It is essentially and copy-and-paste from the source site without proper citations that can verify the articles contents, per WP:V. I'm looking for a redirect. scope_creepTalk 20:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsourced accusations and anyway this is not the place for that. Also not sure how a map can be copy-pasted. --Rschen7754 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to ask the nominator how many articles from one editor triggers the "needs more than one reference" rule from the RFC on mass creation? According to the RFC, there is no set number that, so I'd like to know what the nominator's number is. –Fredddie™ 20:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another source is [3]. There's no way a major project like this didn't receive coverage during planning and construction. Garuda3 (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Keep—finding news coverage for events like this shootout or streetlight thefts or a petition to renamed the highway that would be covered as part of the post-opening history of the roadway. In short, it seems apparent that the nominator did not conduct a proper WP:BEFORE inquiry into this article ahead of the nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 21:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And just to follow on with my comments, those are just initial sources for those events. Once they're added to a History section, additional sources on the outcome of the shootout, the thefts and the petition will need to be added. There were also reports of problematic flooding on the highway. Sounds like this roadway has been the subject of significant coverage, and knee-jerk redirecting a new article may be a bad idea. Imzadi 1979 → 21:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NOT Snow keep. Those references are not specific to the road, just incidental coverage, or even why even they are there. What is needed is real WP:SECONDARY sources, not passing mentions. scope_creepTalk 21:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A petition to rename the roadway itself is "incidental coverage". Wow.
Theft of the street furniture along this roadway is "incidental coverage". Again, wow.
Continuing on, 2013 Pinetown crash happened at the corner of Richmond and Josiah Gumede roads. Richmond Road is another name for the M1 we're discussing. There's another historical event for the History section that should be added. There are news articles about other accidents at that intersection. As mentioned above, there is more to this story than the one link I posted.
And since Richmond Road dates back to at least 1883 (found mention of it in a report from the Colony of Natal on Google Books, there's probably quite a bit more history out there for someone to find if they spent more than the few minutes I have. Again, did you do a WP:BEFORE search of any kind before nominating this per the instructions? Imzadi 1979 → 21:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something from 1883 is probably a bit better. Theft of the street furniture along this roadway is "incidental coverage" dude. scope_creepTalk 22:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources to demonstrate notability clearly do exist and can be found. A proper search before was not conducted. SounderBruce 23:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to Metropolitan Routes in Durban. Currently the article has a single footnote, which does not support the text which it is supposed to. Please see WP:OR and WP:MAPCITE. Of the 5 sources in "Further reading", 3 do not even mention the M1, including the article which supposedly is about a petition to rename the highway. Now, that article may indeed be about this road, but there is no sourcing which says that it is, as such, that is a clear piece of WP:SYNTH. The other 2 sources mention the freeway in passing, offering no in-depth coverage of this road. Onel5969 TT me 23:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that line of reasoning opens a can of worms. When a woman gets married, does that mean that we cannot use sources just because they refer to her maiden name? --Rschen7754 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, unless there is an independent source which verifies that they are the same person. Notice what I said, that there is no sourcing connecting the named road in the article, to the M1. And without that, it is SYNTH. That's most likely easily corrected, but a single sparse source still does not equate to notability. You may know that the married woman is the same as the single woman, but without sourcing, that is SYNTH, or WP:OR. Onel5969 TT me 02:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Good luck with that. --Rschen7754 03:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I will also point out that numerous sources do use the phrase "M1 Higginson Highway": [4], [5] Google search --Rschen7754 02:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Rschen7754 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Africa. Rschen7754 01:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an update - so far we are at 11 news articles, 1 book, 1 journal article, and possibly a lot more on Google Scholar and Google Books. This subject clearly meets GNG. --Rschen7754 02:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Route is an important road of regional significance and is covered in several sources as mentioned by others. Dough4872 02:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer. Most of the coverage on here is extremely poor and wouldn't pass muster in any other Afd type. It is should be redirected. scope_creepTalk 03:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you have looked at the 13 sources added? --Rschen7754 03:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Feels like WP:WORLDVIEW is being disregarded. Also, WP:NOTCLEANUP, poor sourcing or article quality doesn't imply a lack of notability. Would we even be having this conversation if this was a major road in a metropolitan region with 3 million people in a first-world country? Park3r (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because even though a majority of editors are advocating Keeping this article, there are questions about the quality of sourcing. Looking at the article's sources, it seems that most of them concern a supposed ghost that haunts this road which doesn't seem like SIGCOV. This relist can allow sources that have been mentioned in this discussion to be evaluated. Of course, this discussion can be closed whenever an admin is satisfied that there is a policy-based consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I am a bit surprised by this relist rationale. It seems like this would be better expressed as a !vote than an a decision to relist. --Rschen7754 01:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my comment assessing the quality of the sources. I think the rest is neutral. I truly have no opinion about the fate of this article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that was the part that I found problematic. --Rschen7754 01:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a Roads-specific WP:SNG. Does one exist somewhere on the WikiProject? Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I got you fam Wikipedia:Notability (highways) and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability I thought I gaslit myself because I knew I found a standard. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these are accepted guidelines...... Reywas92Talk 04:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This continous idea that the essay WP:WORLDVIEW, somehow applies here, completely ignoring the fact the article doesn't have a references, pushing themselves out the mainstream and again an indication that they are expecting a get-out clause when everybody else had moved on and expecting to reference the article. Its puzzles me why the roads folk didn't get message in 2007-2008 that was widely distributed, that for geographic features, single map references weren't capable of satisfying WP:V. I was told that applies to any geographic feature, like a mountain or a lake or a hill, yet for some reason the road editors didn't get that message, instead charging on like its 2005. It reminds me a quote by William of Ockham that states:
You are completely entitled to opinions that are not supported by evidence, but the moment you spread that opinion as fact, you are a liar, and if you spread it as fact knowing that it’s not supported by evidence, you are both a liar and a fraud. Don't worry. You will change. scope_creepTalk 21:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to assume good faith, because while you are pointing good things, it seems like the large consensus, with evidence is well against you. I mean I will compare it to US 22 (NJ). The big difference is the big American article has some pictures, templates, but functionally its a provincial road. Its why I am big on the WP:WORLDVIEW. It feels like the worst sort of systemic bias that this small suuth african road is AfD for reasons that I know US 22 in NJ would not be. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No your not. A simple reading of the background on this article would have shown it was reviewed at WP:NPP and redirected as it was considered not sourced which was the consensus, shows your argument is a total crock. scope_creepTalk 06:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Took me 30 seconds to find this article [6] which is a story about how the highway received it's name, a controversial tale involving the forced relocation of Indians out of certain Durban neighborhoods into Chatsworth. It seems to be there is indeed a lot more than can be said about this highway. Dave (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOROAD and WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 7 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cowgirl (magazine)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Search finds no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - as other editors have mentioned due to WP:GNG. BogLogs (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per nominator, fails WP:GNG. ProofRobust 21:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Wyoming Livestock Roundup website is about the only thing I can find [7] and it's perhaps not a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The two sources provided are an advertisement and an article by a local publication. The only other mention of the subject that I can found is in this article from Journal Advocate, which apparently is a local newspaper in Colorado. The subject does not seem to meet WP:GNG with the information currently gathered. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As the creating editor, I felt the magazine passed the fifth criteria point on Notability (media) or WP:NMEDIA. The point states "significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets." Westerns, equestrian & hanching are a big culture both in the US and globally. A circulation of 180,000 per issue is why I felt it demonstrated it was a significant publication in this industry.Streamingsteve (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source that was provided for the 180,000 circulation claim seem to be a promotional material for the magazine itself, which does not count as a reliable source. It'll be better to use multiple independent sources to prove the significance of the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a fair comment, as you mentioned I don’t think it’s one of those magazines that would pass GNG, but let me see if I can find anything more reliable for the circulation in the coming days.Streamingsteve (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NMEDIA is an essay, not a policy, and is merely the opinion of the person writing it. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ProQuest turned up this nice description in River Teeth Journal: "Cowgirl Magazine features the same things most women’s magazines do—fashion, lifestyle tips, recipes—for a distinctly cowgirl audience. Think pink saddles and spur straps, romance-novel book reviews, and antelope-meat recipes." There is also this local newspaper article in Montana about a woman who was photographed for Cowgirl. But that's about it. Otherwise, as others have mentioned, there are articles mentioning various accolades people have received from Cowgirl Magazine, but those are passing mentions at best. (And yes, general advice would be, WP:GNG is generally the "safest" starting point when you are starting out, and/or try to get more experience in editing existing articles so you get a better feel for what is out there. There are plenty of articles that need help.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: i tried to see if the Alliance for Audited Media audits their circulation numbers, and couldn't find anything useful. I created Farm Journal earlier this year, and since it is well over 100 years old, i was able to find coverage--but it was surprising to me that a magazine of its circulation size gets so little attention. Just a few newspaper profiles about Cowgirls would do the trick, but I'm not finding any.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not able to find a reliable source thoroughly discussing this magazine online. Nythar (💬-❄️) 02:16, 9 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! 23:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dosser[edit]

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

Band does not appear to be notable and fails to meet WP:BAND. Most of their YouTube videos have under 1,000 views and I'm not finding anything that helps to establish their notability. Previously tagged with PROD, but tag was removed by the creator of the article. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:03, 5 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Winsight[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable organization. All sources seem to be routine announcements in industry publications, bare mentions, self-source, generated from press releases, etc. Google brings up nothing but directory listings and the subject's own publication. Valereee (talk) 18:42, 5 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great Depression in Central Europe[edit]

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

There shouldn't be a general article like this. The effect of the Great Depression on each country should deserve its own article. Besides, it's already hard to define Central Europe today. What was Central Europe during the interwar period, and why should a bunch of countries in different economic situations (e. g. Germany, Hungary and Poland) be grouped together? It's finally also worth noting everything in this article is unsourced except that The unemployment rate in Germany, Austria and Poland rose to 20% while output fell by 40%. Not enough to sustain an article. Super Ψ Dro 18:22, 5 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 no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noodle (character)[edit]

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

Fictional musician, member of a virtual band. She has very little stand-alone notability, outside of some PR stuff about her becoming a "global ambassador for Jaguar Racing", there is nothing significant about her. The article has no reception section. Perhaps some stuff could warrant merging to Gorillaz#Band_members, but I don't see what supports keeping this a stand-alone article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Japan. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Comics and animation, and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The members of Gorillaz are a pretty unique case in which they are treated as "real" even by reliable publications. And although the page may need work, there is already enough here to establish notability and an article. Here are some sources from the first page of Google News: DJ Mag [8], Mixmag [9], Pitchfork [10], Spin [11], Us Weekly [12], NME [13], and Guitar World [14]. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    DJMAG's intereview - with a fictional character - is de facto a short story, pure fiction, and not really reliable for anything. mixmag one paragraph text reads like a press release. Same for pitchfork and spin. US Weekly is another "interview", i.e. a piece of cition. NME is a brief, few sentences coverage of a PR stunt, i.e. the fictional's character dating profile. Finally, GW is another interview. Sorry, I am not impressed, the sources are either PRIMARY (interview fiction) or don't meed SIGCOV. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, this is a special case. But the fact is that the character, whether as a "person" or as a character, has been the subject of several publications, and I was able to find them from little more than the first ten entries on Google News. And yes, some interviews from reliable publications can be used for notability, especially when they mix commentary (i.e., a secondary source) alongside the actual interview as those linked above do. My threshold for notability is if there is enough material from sources to write an article. I see that here. (I'd also recommend nominating the other three or so members to the AfD.) Why? I Ask (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - To me, it clearly fails GNG. (I could leave it at that, but it would be WP:POINT, perhaps. So I'll add that the lack of reception section seems like a big problem. If it is added, perhaps this could be saved, if not, redirect and merge are reasonable) - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Gorillaz#Band members. Almost entirely plot summary, fails WP:ALLPLOT and lacks critical reception as a fictional character. I can see it making sense in the main article, or maybe a general List of Gorillaz characters, but not standalone. The same applies to the other characters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm Yeah, they don't look good: Russel Hobbs (no reception), Murdoc Niccals (reception but seems stretched from few mentions in passing), 2-D (character) (no reception). A ton of WP:FANCRUFT here, probably all should be just redirects. Well, will likely list them for their own AfDs after this one concludes, unless there is some major improvement in the meantime. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And how exactly would deleting such a great amount of verifiable and sought after content be helpful to anyone? Célestin Denis (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is some groundwork to build a reception section from out there. The GScholar links provide a few hits like "'The Digital Won't Let Me Go': Constructions of the Virtual and the Real in Gorillaz' 'Clint Eastwood'" published in Journal of Popular Music Studies and the book Pop Music and Easy Listening, where Johnson spends well over WP:100W (an essay, I know, but a measurement I find sufficient) discussing the "techno Orientalism" anthropomorphized by Noodle on pp 18-19. Also "Virtual pop: gender, ethnicity, and identity in virtual bands and vocaloid", apparently unpublished, but worth scholarly analysis for a PhD thesis that has been cited at least four times, where Stark dedicates the entire Chapter 5 to discussing Noodle outside of the mentions in the greater discussion. Also, GBooks gives a good hit in Chapter 9 "'Feel Good' with Gorillaz and 'Reject False Icons'" from The Oxford Handbook of Music and Virtuality where Rambarran has a 1.5-2 pg section dedicated to discussing Noodle outside the greater analysis on Noodle's part in the song. There are multiple GNG sources that WP:NEXIST to keep this article, in my opinion, and hopefully they can be integrated at some point. Happy Thanksgiving! -2pou (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Gorillaz#Band members. Gorillaz are great, but I think the character has the individual critical insight and coverage to justify. Gnomatique (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Gorillaz#Band members. Most of the coverage for this character is around the band in general. Once you remove some of the WP:UNDUE weight from primary sources, it would fit nicely there and cover a lot of the same ground. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Gorillaz#Band members For virtual characters that are notable ie Hololive or Virtual youtubers in general we need a lot more basis than this. She isn't at the level of some of the actual notable virtual characters Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It's normal to merge members of a music group to one article. The sources mainly cover all of the Gorillaz. That could change if one of these characters decides to go solo. Archrogue (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is that 1. The Gorillaz article already is very lengthy and a lot of information would be lost if Noodle's article would be merged into the main article and that 2. A similar situation with the sources applies to the other Gorillaz members. Why would we merge Noodle and not the other characters? Merging all the characters into the main article would make the article a lot more lengthy than it needs to be so it should obviously not be into consideration. This was already established in the 2010 consensus where it was decided that all four character articles be kept: [15]. Deciding to merge one character and not the others would be inconsistent. Célestin Denis (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This article is far too lengthy to be adequately merged into the main article without considerable information being lost and I think WP:SPINOFF is justified here given the length of the Gorillaz article. Deciding to delete or merge the Noodle article would likely subsequently trigger similar actions on other band members' articles which was already implied with some of the "Delete" votes. This would turn the Gorillaz article into a complete mess. Previous consensus already established my position when choosing to keep the articles of all four members: [16] and the point still stands today. There also seems to be sufficient individual coverage of Noodle per Why? I Ask's Keep vote to warrant such an article. I would like to conclude by stating that frankly, such a move would absolutely not be helpful to readers seeking information on a particular band member. Célestin Denis (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article is kept, I'd rename it to Noodle (Gorillaz), as was done in 2013. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, oppose merge to Gorillaz#Band members. I agree with Célestin Denis's arguments above in opposition to merging with the main Gorillaz article. However, I would be supportive of merging all the band member articles into a single, dedicated article as Zxcvbnm indicated, similar to how some bands have dedicated member lists/articles, e.g. List of Black Sabbath and Heaven & Hell members. Uhai (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all content but merge all Gorillaz band member articles into a single article on members of the band. BD2412 T 20:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't see how merging the members into one page would benefit Wikipedia. Especially as more people access Wikipedia from mobile devices, one article with multiple infoboxes will be more cumbersome to read. Garuda3 (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You would get rid of the infoboxes and convert the contents to prose and/or create tables like seen on List of Black Sabbath and Heaven & Hell members. Uhai (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This would make the content harder to read, especially on mobile. I generally feel infoboxes benefit the reader. Garuda3 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For that list, most members listed already have a Wikipedia page with (you guessed it) an infobox. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:59, 12 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground strikes[edit]

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

To quote February 2022 "Out of date and misleading article, unlikely to be resolvable as clearly no interest by editors". I agree with that sentiment. Has not had substantial edits since, and contents of article can clearly be folded into London Underground or other articles. Turini2 (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Turini2 (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (selectively), interesting one this, as the subject matter would generally get reasonable publicity due to the extensive usage and widespread notability of the underground. I can understand the premise of the article and would think that, with some effort, the table could be converted into prose with sections for the most noteworthy strikes and the coverage behind them. In it's current state, I don't like it and I concur with the concerns that there seems little interest to improve, but is this a reason to delete? I'd probably lean keep or at the very, very least, merge/redirect into a section of London Underground with history preservation for future development. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic is clearly notable based on the amount of coverage strikes get, but this clearly isn't being kept up to date. I think it might be better recast as a list of strikes with less information, pointing to prose coverage elsewhere in articles like History of the London Underground, <year> in the United Kingdom, 2022 United Kingdom railway strikes, etc. so I guess I'm at keep and improve, but weakly. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. So the main issue here is that no one has been willing to update the article. But I'm definitely up for it!!! I would love to have some help as it's a big task, but I'll hold off on actively canvassing for help until this discussion is closed, and maybe it makes sense to do some basic fixes first anyway before it turns into a free-for-all. (I've already started to move some of the content around that was hiding below that huge list...and will start to delete some information as well, shortly. But it's all with the intention of coming up with a better structure and working toward improvement.) Important and timely topic, and for sure, it is not a good thing that the article is so out-of-date when clearly the page is a magnet for traffic. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:30, 5 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! 17:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep It has been greatly improved by User:Cielquiparle since nomination (and since the single support), but imo should never have been nominated in the first place, as the grounds given are not grounds for deletion. Johnbod (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep per Cielquiparle's immense improvements. Aza24 (talk) 05:50, 12 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! 05:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Jahangir[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:ENT actor. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - There is a thing called WP:BEFORE. Insight 3 (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP Majid Jahangir worked for Pakistan Television Corporation for 22 years and is a very notable TV actor. He was awarded by the Government of Pakistan twice for his contributions, once in the 1980s and again in 2021. Besides all this, this article has many reliable Pakistani newspaper references to support and endorse his notability. In my view, this article does not belong on AfD. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can't see any notable work except Fifty Fifty TV drama (6 years) in his 22 years journey (someone claimed). And the work in TV show Khabarnak doesn't make him even notable because no one can claim for his years of participation in this show. (Most of the cast is nont notable in this show). Actor should be in the list of multiple films, dramas, stage performances or multiple awards nominations to make him notable.M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You nominated this article within less than an hour of its creation, making it highly doubtful that you even glanced at the cited sources let alone carefully read or evaluated them for subject's notability. This is a very casual and irresponsible nomination, to say the least.
    Now for multiple performances and award nominations, see the article again and this time give it some thought. Insight 3 (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as his nomination is concerned, it is a responsible nomination. In 1975, he won an award by acting in just one play, and he also took a long break.

I have not seen any other work of this actor after this play. If you have any knowledge, write it on the page and I will be with you. Otherwise, there is a long list of actors like him in Pakistan who have acted in 4-5 dramas, so are they also famous people?M.Ashraf333 (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Quite a notable actor, article too has significant coverage from reliable sources. Muneebll (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:NBASIC and WP:ANYBIO. The subject has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and has won 2 highly notable state awards. This nomination is simply the result of nominator's poor understanding of WP:NACTOR. Insight 3 (talk) 16:45, 5 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! 16:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I was going to mention WP:ANYBIO before reading the comment above mine. Yes, two notable awards indicate notability, and the sourcing is good. Nythar (💬-❄️) 02:20, 9 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 14:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NextLabs[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. A search of Google, GBooks, Scholar, Newspapers.com, and archive.org shows nothing that would show notability for the subject. GBooks showed the most results that weren't press releases, but they were all passing mentions. Aoidh (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a press release, which is indicated by the "author" of the article being PRNewswire, and so is not at all a reliable source, it's a paid release by the company itself. - Aoidh (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then I will go with Delete because there are no reliable source talking about this company. RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 23:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was unable to find any independent, in-depth sources. - MrOllie (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources don't exist, hence it is not notable. Lordofhunter (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find anything that shows it meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP, only press releases and similar. Article creator has no contribs outside this article so it's possibly a UPE/COI/solicited article. Uhai (talk) 00:02, 12 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 Prison Break characters#Sara Scofield (née Tancredi). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Tancredi[edit]

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

Fictional character, 95% of the article is the usual plot summary. WP:GNG fail. There is no analysis, just a "concept and creation" referenced to passing mentions in TV Guide. BEFORE didn't reveal much, just a bachelor thesis in Indonesian ([18]). Perhaps redirecting to List of Prison Break characters will be a form of WP:PRESERVE we can use here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:01, 5 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! 21:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TechSmith[edit]

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

All of the references are to company website, company YouTube or deadlinks. Two of the four are about an awards competition the company held one time, in 2011-12. Fails NCORP. David notMD (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Although not mentioned in the article, TechSmith does have current screensave software programs - Camtasia and Snagit which are the subjects of articles - and an article about discontinued software: Jing (software). These share the same weakness as the parent corporation article, i.e., lack of independent references. David notMD (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As recently as July 2022, the article was four times longer and had 18 references. The subsequent Edit summaries justified the cuts as removing promotional content, but it is possible that references supporting notability were lost at that time. The editor who had added most of the deleted content has not been active since 2012, and so cannot be invited to comment here. David notMD (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Interesting. In going through the first 100+ hits of "TechSmith" in Wikipedia Library, most of the independent secondary coverage focuses mainly on Camtasia and Snagit in the form of product reviews, and could be added as sources to those pages. Everything else appears to be press release-driven media coverage originating from TechSmith. In this case there appears to be a stronger case for keeping a couple of the product articles and most likely deleting the article on the company itself. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the above comment, not much coverage for the company, mostly for the software they publish. Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 5 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! 03:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeLines (Coventry)[edit]

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

outdated, very point of viewed article 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Agree that the article as-is is in a very bad state, but per WP:NEXIST it's not the state of the sourcing that matters, but that the article can be reliably sourced. SIGCOV exists in the following sources sufficient for a GNG pass: 1 2 3. Admittedly this is pretty low-level, but the awards and later academic coverage appears to get it over the line for WP:GNG or even WP:ORG. FOARP (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wrt these refs; the first is from a trade publication, the second a paragraph in a local newspaper and the third is an article written by the local authority which did the work. The bus route improvements seem to be of very marginal importance, the references basically don't exist to improve the page. So I say delete. JMWt (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JMWt - Trade publications can also be used to show notability so long as they are reliable and SIGCOV, which Transport Times appears to be (i.e., it's a WP:NEWSORG pass) - they just shouldn't be the only coverage ideally. This article appears also to have been extensive (though 80% of it is pay-walled) The Coventry Telegraph article extends beyond a paragraph, but even if it doesn't SIGCOV requires only that the subject be referred to "directly and in detail". Additionally the Coventry Telegraph had other extensive pieces on it here and here. I accept that one of the authors on that academic piece seems to have worked for city council - I hadn't seen the affiliations declaration on the ICE website but see it now, thanks for pointing that out. This article in Polish from the University of Gdansk is without any affiliation issues as far as I can see and includes an extensive discussion of the PrimeLines project spanning p. 124-125. This appears to be a WP:GNG and WP:ORG pass (though I'm not sure if ORG actually applies here or not). FOARP (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that it is part of the story of the history of the transport network in Coventry, I just don't see how the page can be written - especially given that the improvements have been superceded. Ok sure, we have the references we can use to show it happened. At best that's a stub. And that's being generous. JMWt (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trade publications absolutely can demonstrate notability. Or do you think that [19] isn't an example of significant coverage because Trains Magazine is a trade publication? The Transport Times source certainly isn't nearly as in-depth as the example I gave, but it cannot be dismissed solely because it's a trade publication. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware of that. I'm also aware that trade publications necessarily run stories on minor changes that have limited importance and notability. For example, no doubt the British railway trade press regularly runs stories on points changes or progress with line upgrades. That doesn't therefore mean that each points change is notable. I think that's a direct anologue here: a data point in the development in the bus routes in a British city. JMWt (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JMWt - "Limited notability" is still notability. Subjective views of what is and isn't notable based on feelings as to whether something is "minor" or not have no part in this analysis. A WP:GNG pass requires only SIGCOV in more than one reliable, independent source, and we clearly have that. If you have a merge target you'd prefer then go ahead and propose that, but notability is clearly there, because even excluding the specialist press (and there is no reason to do this) we still have newspaper and academic coverage. Here's the BBC on it as well. There is coverage at regional level meeting WP:AUD requirements if you think those apply here (I'm not sure they do), and the University of Gdansk paper is international coverage.
Like I said, I think the state of the article is not great, but it can be improved through ordinary editing so there just isn't a DELREASON here. FOARP (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've re-written the article substantially to remove the POV and non-RS content, add RS content, and give later context (e.g., a lot of the bus lanes in Coventry being closed/suspended). Please have a look and let me know what you think. I think it at least extends beyond a mere stub. If a "bus transportation in Coventry" article existed I could understand merging to it, but AFAIK no such article exists - just articles partially covering the topic. FOARP (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep being outdated or POV problems are not valid reasons for deletion. Article has been expanded since nomination. Garuda3 (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The reasons for nomination have been addressed, thanks to the recent improvements by FOARP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This demonstrably meets GNG, so it should be retained. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:04, 11 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Energy (Beyoncé song)[edit]

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

Not a notable release, fails WP:NSONG . The only noteworthy thing here is the Controversy part, but all of that is already part of the album article. Sricsi (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Sricsi (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets GNG and NSONG. There are several sources specific to the song even if focuses on the controversy, which is specific to the song, not the album (although fine to be addressed in the album article as well). Rlendog (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NSONG per Rlendog's arguments. Seems to be enough independent coverage about the song. SBKSPP (talk) 04:48, 7 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 no consensus. – Joe (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Entropy (video game)[edit]

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

Taking this to AFD after the WP:PROD was removed in good faith. My reasoning was: Does not have WP:SIGCOV to become notable. Could not find a single review WP:BEFORE nomination. The only coverage is from press-release style announcements without significant coverage to pass WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did see those, but they are all short news-clip announcements based off of press releases. I would feel differently if this game received a proper review that wasn't just quoting announcements from the devs. Jontesta (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sources merely rehash the press release. Coverage is not significant or of sufficient depth. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Delete: Ugh, I hate this !vote -- Odie5533 is right that there is coverage in reliable sources. I also found this Engadget piece ([20]) about a sale they had. But none of this is substantial coverage of the game itself, and I don't think it meets WP:GNG. Nomader (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found three more sources: XGN.nl, Gamer.no, and Games.cz. I believe the US Gamer (previously linked), the XGN, and the PC Gamer source cited in the article constitute significant coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck my "Delete" and made it a "Weak Delete." The Gamer.no and Games.cz sources both cite the press release directly, and are basically just reprints of it. The XGN article seems a little bit more in-depth, but these are all just... kind of trivial mentions still. It's mentions of sales and press releases -- there's no reviews or significant development things. I could see an argument for !keep passing muster here though now more than I did before (thanks for following up with more sources). Nomader (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not seeing WP:SIGCOV, just a lot of trivial news mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The PC Gamer and XGN articles provide commentary beyond press releases. Daranios (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Personally, if this article does end up being kept, it needs a lot of work and a cleanup. I see an overall lack of content and information on the article, and a lot WP:MOS errors. While there may be coverage from reliable sources, the fact remains that this article needs cleanup. And personally, I would rather see a cleanup than a deletion if possible. Zekerocks11 (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinions are mixed. But it never hurts to "clean up" an article before an AFD closure, in fact, sometimes it can make a big difference in the outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We have more than a dozen sources but I'm still not seeing significant secondary coverage. All of the sources cite press releases (either paraphrased or quoted) or interviews. The most secondary analysis we get is essentially "I guess we'll see when the game comes out"—but they never did, apparently. Woodroar (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Routine, non-significant coverage. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - coverage seems reasonable enough but I'll admit the article could use a bit more fine tuning and information about the game itself. BogLogs (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BogLogs can you please name two examples where there is at least 2 solid paragraphs coveraging the subject? In two different reliable sources? I’ll change my vote to keep if these can be located. Where is the significant coverage? MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maxna, thanks for asking me. In the discussion above they are already listed by here are the sources again US Gamer, Game Informer, VG247, Game Reactor. I'm not sure exactly what a solid paragraph constitutes for you but I think those more than provide enough for your request. In fact after looking at them I'm considering changing my own vote from weak keep to keep. BogLogs (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to List of MMORPGs. Not yet notable for its own article but a valid search term. --Masem (t) 15:23, 7 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 no consensus. – Joe (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Hai Chota Sa[edit]

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

Not seeing how this is a notable television show. Aired for only 17 episodes (if the infobox is accurate) for a brief period of time without indication that it received any WP:SIGCOV. The citations offered are either db entries or passing mentions. Previously deleted via PROD around the time of its airing with similar concerns. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- The citations mentioned are of popular newspapers i.e, of Express Tribune and Dawn. The ref 3 has synopsis of the series while ref. 2 analysis the series critically, and praised its writing. Thus, it should not be considered for deletion. However, a template of more citations can be added.Qwef1234 (talk)
Please tell me which of the citations are actually covering this programme in any meaningful way? One is a database-like entry, another is a bio of an actor, another is a passing mention and the other is barely worth including. The one you note as being "critical analysis" falls far short of being significant. Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An article should speak for itself and tell the reader what is notable, without requiring the reader to check the references. There is nothing in this article that refers to significant coverage by independent sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets V, NTV (aired nationally), and multiple lead actors appear notable. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, why does it matter if series have 17 or less episodes? Wikipedia does have articles on short or miniseries as well. As far as WP:SIGCOV is concern, references does cover the subject in detail along with the synopsis. Also serial ensemble popular actors recognized internationally, keeping all this in mind, I believe it should stay. Lillyput4455 (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I see isn't the episode count, as I am fully aware a drama can have very few and be very notable, but on this occasion my point is that I don't see evidence this drama lasted long enough to sustain notability, possibly in part due to its short run. Which references cover this programme in detail? Also, a show can not assume inherited notability just because some cast are notable for other works (also in relation to Jclemens point above). Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no coverage found that is beyond a passing mention. We need in-depth, sustained coverage of the program in order to keep this here, we don't have it. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails notability. There's a catalog listing as a source (not in depth), an interview with an actress in the show that only name drops the show, the Dawn piece is a very short paragraph and at best is a puff piece with no actual coverage. Similarly, the Tribune source has a very brief coverage of the show. The article lacks any sources with actual in depth coverage of the show. Ravensfire (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject is an award winning TV show, starring renowned artists of the country. The sources does indicate the notability of the series, and are from strong international sites i.e, Tribune and Dawn. There is space for improvement but it should stay on Wikipedia rather than being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.91.151 (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not inherited from renowned artists, and saying that the references are international sites without stating how SIGCOV is met seems unconvincing. VickKiang (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This IP editor has made no or few edits outside of this topic. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The credibility and relevance towards notability demonstration of the aforementioned sources has already been discounted. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ref 1 is a database, this ref is a trivial mention, Dawn ref is a three sentence very short paragraph (non-SIGCOV), whereas this is another short one paragraph coverage. Yes, the references are WP:RS, but SIGCOV is a requirement, which none of the references here meet IMO. My WP:BEFORE also did not find sufficiently SIGCOV-meeting sources. VickKiang (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:41, 5 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.

Couldn't redirect to the suggested page because the target page was itself a redirect. So, Soft Deletion it is. Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Christian Academy (Quispamsis, New Brunswick)[edit]

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

No evidence found that this is a notable school. Fram (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found no sources that was independent or non-routine. So I support deletion. RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 09:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah feel free to delete this, I'll take an L on it. There's not enough sources for this school to have an article with enough details made about it. B3251 (talk) 21:40, 10 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 Draft:Queen of Tears. (non-admin closure) — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Tears[edit]

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

Article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:TVSERIES. Only the two lead actors are confirmed to have joined the cast, no confirmed TV network, and filming has not yet started. Accireioj (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Preferably transferred to drafts . Muatsem90 (talk) 09:46, 5 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 San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija#Religion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clever Lane Montessori School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:46, 5 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! 07:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bohol Wisdom School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:45, 5 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! 07:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benedicto College[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Official and facebook sites are not third party sources
  2. Sunstar link just describes an event in campus
  3. DepEd link doesn't work
  4. Tesda courses is linked to an ad heavy website and only lists available tesda courses within the school
  5. Philstar link is a press release

--Lenticel (talk) 08:35, 5 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 Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mujhe Pyar Hua Tha[edit]

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

TV drama fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:TVSERIES M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draftify. An upcoming show that might be notable, but currently this is WP:TOOSOON and fails GNG. Refs are routine announcements, per WP:GNG directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. Moreover, ref 1 has a vague contact us page but no editorial policies meeting WP:RS, I could not access ref 2 (404 error), whereas the rest are obviously non-reliable. WP:BEFORE found little more, e.g., this questionable announcement on a teaser, routinely listing the cast in a source with no editorial policies as well. However, as this is upcoming, draftication might be a suitable ATD, otherwise this clearly fail WP:GNG and I am at delete. VickKiang (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added source that may be notable(though it may be WP:UGC) RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 09:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roost: It's the same as the source I linked above, routine announcement with no editorial policies, just says that The Brown Identity is a space for everyone to talk about what they like, don’t like, what they wish they could talk about without worrying about fitting into pigeonholes. Unfortunately, I don't think it helps with GNG, but thanks for your comment. VickKiang (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify as WP:TOOSOON. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although looks WP:TOOSOON but since it's created now, it can be kept this time. Muneebll (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, which sources do you think show that this meets notability now and does not fall under WP:TOOSOON? Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:25, 5 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! 23:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harukanaru Toki no Naka de 3[edit]

Harukanaru Toki no Naka de 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two issues: entirely plot and character descriptions, and no sources. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 18:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can I get confirmation the sources were searched for in Japanese as well? I am getting a massive amount of hits for the JP name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It appears that this has some coverage on the Japanese Wikipedia, but I would need a stronger reader to evaluate the sources for certain. Archrogue (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah, I really can't see how this article could be improved, or even why it should be improved. I can't think of anything else to do to it either. Woworiginal (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The reasons of AfD: 1) plot and character descriptions only, 2) No sources. I have added some references (some sources) and added the Titles section and the Related Products description sections. I will try to improve the article. But now I am a bit busy, so maybe later. Anyway, the two major reasons of deletion may be solved, although there are yet many points to be improved. -- Flora fon Esth (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Reviewers, please assess whether recent changes to the article address the concerns of the deletion rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Flora added some sources. I didn't check how good they are, but if the nominator can't be bothered to comment, nor can anyone else, I suggest closing this as no consensus. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm seeing some coverage of the subject in English in this anime encyclopedia. Obviously the Japanese language search would be more pertinent to a Japanese language subject. I'm AGF on the recently added sources. I'd suspect that game reviews are available in the mother tongue. BusterD (talk) 22:36, 7 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) Garuda3 (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Privileggio[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTRACK. LibStar (talk) 04:44, 28 November 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, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Had to do some translating but after new sources were added, seems to reach WP:GNG. Enough coverage but not sure if all the .gr are notable. JojoMN1987 (talk) 16:21, 9 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. Unlike previous similar discussions, some plausible evidence has been provided of sources examining the topic of the list; however, as best as I can tell, it seems limited to a single clearly reliable source, which is generally considered insufficient. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Szczecin[edit]

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

Per extensive recent consensus on these types of lists, they must meet WP:NLIST/WP:GNG. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Shreveport and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama which both closed as clear delete, with closure statements refuting the argument that any other criteria takes precedence over notability for these lists.

The topic of tall buildings in Szczecin as a whole has no significant coverage that I found, so GNG/NLIST is not met. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and Poland. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. How's your Polish, PMC? The topic probably doesn't have any coverage in English, but I found some in Polish: Gazeta Wyborcza is RS and covered this. Not sure how reliable is this fansite about buildings in Poland but it covers the topic: [25]. I don't think Super Express is reliable (Polish Daily Mail...) but it hasn't been officially depraciated at RSN and it covered this too: [26]. There are two or three similar rankings from local media. I'd say LISN is borderline met. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm limited to English and the vagaries of Google Translate; languages are not my forte. I didn't come across the GW source, but it looks reliable to me and happy to accept it as prose coverage of the topic. However, I'm not willing to accept a fansite as reliable coverage; even if I was, that's just a ranking and not actually prose coverage of the topic, so I don't think it supports a claim to notability either way. As for Super Express, if you're describing something as unreliable on the face of things (even if it is not yet deprecated), then why would it be useful to support a claim to notability? I wouldn't accept anything the Daily Mail posted about the tallest buildings in London, either. The local news media rankings you mention - are those prose coverage, or just lists like the Urbanity fansite? If they're just lists, I wouldn't consider them significant coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that Szczecin is twice the size of Shreveport and Montgomery, so I don't think any precedent has been set by the other two AfDs. The article needs to be judged entirely on its own merits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I invite you to make a policy-based argument about the merits of this article, as Piotrus has. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am neutral on whether it should be retained or not. I was merely challenging your apparent allegation that these AfDs set some sort of precedent for other cities. They do not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The community evidently disagrees with you, considering that so far, every single one I've PROD'd or AfD'd with this rationale has closed as delete (9 in total). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So far I see Greensboro, Beaumont, Charleston WV, Gwangju and Almaty. I don't think these can be compared to an historic European city like Szczecin. As I said, there is no precedent here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest I have no idea. Population size, to me, is not a relevant consideration for these lists. My concern is coverage of the overall topic per NLIST, and coverage is not necessarily correlated with population size. Conceivably one could have a city of a half million people spread out over miles of horrible suburban sprawl and nothing in the skyline taller than 100m. Alternately, you could have a small city of 20k with a ton of really tall buildings for some weird reason that has generated a lot of coverage. In every case so far, no one has been able to locate multiple significant prose sources about the topic, hence all of them being deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As a side note, the above comment was apparently entirely revised while I was replying to it, making my reply appear incoherent. It originally read "Have any of them been anywhere near the size of Szczecin? Or have they all been middling size cities like Shreveport and Montgomery? I would entirely agree that a list is not appropriate for cities of this size.", and that is what I was replying to. As for the current revision, I'm presently working from a list at User:Premeditated Chaos/sandbox 4, which shows 9 redlinks from my PROD/AfDs. And again, historicity/age of city has nothing to do with notability for the topic of height of buildings. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't. But you just can't use an AfD on one city as a precedent for an AfD relating to a completely different city with no resemblance to the previous one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not one city, Necro, it's nine that I've done within the last month, and more to come. Montgomery was last year, so call it ten, and there's of course every AfD about these lists that's closed as delete within the past year or so that I haven't been a nom for. The clear community consensus is that these lists don't get a free pass because tall buildings are fun. They have to abide by notability standards just like anything else. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is merely that saying "because this (or these) were deleted at AfD then this one must be deleted too" is not valid. No precedent for deletion is established by unrelated AfDs (just being a list of buildings relating to a town is not close enough). Each article needs to be discussed on its own merits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, each article should be discussed on its merits. We both agree on that, and again, I invite you to present any policy-based argument for keeping this list. Your repetitive argument that there is no such thing as precedent is an esoteric interpretation that the community at large does not agree with. This is evident from the multiple delete closures with clear consensus towards applying notability standards to these lists. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:57, 5 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! 05:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 125m is the tallest building, and most aren't even historic or listed buildings in the local heritage register. I don't any of them as being very notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And out of the six buildings, only two have articles. I don't see the point of this list, it could be a sentence in the article about the city where we list the six buildings. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This one made me hesitate and look into it more...there's some coverage mentioned above, but is it enough? This source seems fine enough. This one the reliability of it is questionable apparently, so not so much. This is a list without context or elaboration and apparently is a "fan site"; not sure about that part, but there doesn't appear to be any context for what it's displaying, so there's nothing to extract from it, no significant coverage. That gives us one good source discussing this list as a group. WP:NLIST directs us to WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. This article only has one when it ideally should have at least three. I don't speak Polish so I can't really search for sources with any confidence, but if additional sources are found, as always I'd be more than happy to reassess. - Aoidh (talk) 16:58, 9 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! 07:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery[edit]

American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP criteria for inclusion. The article's purpose of existence seems to be for publicity only. My search for coverage didn't find anything significant, and most things I found were about the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, which is a different organization 10 times the size of this one. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 09:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[27] I found this though. Not sure about its contribution to notability. RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 09:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that too. It isn't coverage, it just verifies the existence of a medical credential created by that org. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article does not meet the WP:CORP criteria, mainly for its lack of secondary sources. I was unable to find any reliable mentions of it outside of primary or closely related sources during my most recent edits to the article.
I suggest delete based on WP:ORGSIG or merge with Oculoplastics, although it seems to be well mentioned in that article already. Martiansizzle (talk) 17:57, 8 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Gatou[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTRACK and more broadly WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, concur that the sources added are enough to pass GNG, while the Gazzetta source seems questionable, the Rodiaki, Metrosport and Stivos Time sources are all clearly SIGCOV. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:12, 9 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! 05:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Ramos (footballer)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage appears limited to statistics database entries with no prose. signed, Rosguill talk 04:59, 5 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 Belgium–France relations. I would have liked to see more discussion of the sources, but relisting again is a waste of time for a one-sentence article. This result is based on the current state of the article, and does not preclude a future article that is supported by good sources. Sock !votes are being ignored. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belgians in France[edit]

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

No indication of WP:GNG, and no context. Alverado (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC) (This account is a confirmed sock puppet and has been blocked indefinitely Frank Anchor 19:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belgium and France. Alverado (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, one would imagine that it should be a notable subject, but I can't find any sources discussing the Belgian community in France at all. Maybe there is something in French or Dutch? JMWt (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we don't find any published material about the subject, then we should admit that it isn't notable. Formerly, the article was longer, but virtually all material in it was either unsourced, not really related to the subject, or a violation of WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. Alverado (talk), 07:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC) (This account is a confirmed sock puppet and has been blocked indefinitely Frank Anchor 19:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion_review#26_November_2022 given sock infestation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As JMWt indicates, this should be a notable subject, but if we don't have sources to support it, then we shouldn't have an article until we find sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the single statement in the article can be added to Belgium–France relations.LibStar (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but actually Merge to Belgium–France relations) - A little confused by the discussion above, since a cursory and uninformed search reveals plenty of academic discussion of the topic on the first page of results alone:[1][2][3][4]That PhD diss from the 1970s, in particular, looks to have an extensive bibliography from which to build a larger article. That said, it seems fine to me to include that information in the History section of Belgium–France relations. Therefore, while I expect late consensus around keeping is unlikely to form, I recommend a Merge with a "Sources exist" template added to the target page (or similar). Suriname0 (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Poulain, Michel; Foulon, Michel; Degioanni, Anna; Darlu, Pierre (2000-06-01). "Flemish immigration in wallonia and in france:". The History of the Family. 5 (2): 227–241. doi:10.1016/S1081-602X(00)00035-X. ISSN 1081-602X.
  2. ^ Vanden Borre, Saartje; Verschaffel, Tom (2012), Van Ginderachter, Maarten; Beyen, Marnix (eds.), "Between or Without Nations? Multiple Identifications Among Belgian Migrants in Lille, Northern France, 1850–1900", Nationhood from Below: Europe in the Long Nineteenth Century, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 193–213, doi:10.1057/9780230355354_9, ISBN 978-0-230-35535-4, retrieved 2022-12-04
  3. ^ "BELGIAN WORKERS IN ROUBAIX, FRANCE, IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. - ProQuest". www.proquest.com. Retrieved 2022-12-04.
  4. ^ Bade, Klaus (2008-04-15). Migration in European History. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-75457-3.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts based on the sources provided by Suriname0?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Belgium–France relations. This seems like a pretty clear case of redirect until someone writes an article, which I'm sure can be written, but this one sentence isn't it. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:40, 12 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin West[edit]

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

Having been the Canadian Forces Chief Warrant Officer and being present at a minor government scandal do not "warrant" a standalone article. Kevin West (politician) should be moved here, with a hatnote to the CFCWO article for this guy. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:00, 5 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 Bacolod#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bacolod Tay Tung High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:26, 5 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 Bislig#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Soriano Colleges of Bislig[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Zero hits on Google News. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:21, 5 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 Bisbee, Arizona. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Park, Cochise County, Arizona[edit]

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

Aerials and topos show this to be a 1950s-era subdivision. I'm not seeing any notability for it as I really can't find anything that says more than just "it's a place." Mangoe (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bisbee, Arizona: Just outside the Bisbee city limits, but part of the metro area. There was a park there (Highland Park, formerly Frick's Park) and i see reports about making some silent films there in the 1920s.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no mention of Highland Park in Bisbee, so that would confuse a reader sent there. No objection to redirecting this is something is added. MB 00:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in case a mention of the article subject is added to an appropriate redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 5 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 Tornadoes of 2016#Manila tornado. (non-admin closure) jp×g 03:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manila tornado[edit]

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

Completing AfD for anon. Reason for deletion is as follows.

While tornadoes in Manila are extradionarily rare, it wasn’t that destructive. All information can fit cozily in Tornadoes of 2016.143.170.105.162 (talk)

I'm neutral on the matter since this is a procedural nomination. Lenticel (talk) 03:15, 5 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! 03:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wildens Delva[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:55, 5 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! 03:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shinaider Charles[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing showing on a basic Google Search, News, Images or otherwise. One national team appearance four years ago and nothing since as well, so it was already an extremely basic pass of the deprecated NFOOTBALL, and there's unlikely to be much out there that would extend coverage of him. SmackJam (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've searched a few places - and not even a mention. Nfitz (talk) 02:24, 11 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! 03:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COBB Tuning[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Searching finds company website, database entries, other non-independent things, a few passing mentions, and lots of ads selling the company products. But very little to establish notability. MB 02:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't find anything contributing to notability. Delete RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 09:53, 5 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. I think those advocating Keep have provided sources that address the concerns of the nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 08:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mareke giri[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, couldn't find anything about this topic online, most results are related to the Wikipedia page. TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger -- Sorry for the delay in replying, Phil. One of the three sources is paywalled. Of the other two, I would say, based on Google's Farsi to English translations, that they fail RS, IMHO. MurrayGreshler (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
they fail RS! If you don't know Persian, how can you assess their reliability? These are peer-reviewed academic articles published in academic journals, not a bunch of self-published web pages. You, as a Wikipedian, don't need to asses their reliability. Experts have already done that. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow editors to weigh in following sourcing that was identified which may cause a change in !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @4nn1l2 - thanks for helping us with Persian sources. I think it would help the rest of us if you can give us the words in Persian for the topic and/or the page on fa.wiki (or other relevant wikis). With regard to your refs, I believe your assertion that these cover the topic, however I can only really !vote if I can see the terms in use. Much appreciated, thanks again. JMWt (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fawiki article is fa:معرکه‌گیری which unfortunately is not written that good. Although it has some pictures which may help you understand the topic of discussion. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can't access a translation of the academic sources above, however I have been able to now find multiple news articles on the topic, including 1 and 2. I'm therefore comfortable that there are many in-depth sources on the topic that satisfy the GNG. JMWt (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, there are even books (monographs) about it.[31] This kind of show is very old (1870 picture) and has been very popular in Iran in the old days, but nowadays it's almost disappearing. Furthermore, the term is being used figuratively for many many things in Persian, so it's hard to find good results by search engines which are biased towards recentism. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I attempted to clean up and added many citations and two images. This is a traditional type of street performance and it has many detailed citations available in Persian; therefore this passes GNG. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 00:43, 7 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 P. G. Wodehouse characters. The content shall be preserved in the page history if anyone wants to merge content into the list article. Right now that list is just a list of names, and might require splitting if it is to be expanded into a more detailed list with sections for each character. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oofy Prosser[edit]

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

The topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. WP:BEFORE only found licensed sources affiliated with the subject, or database style coverage without any significant real-world reception. Jontesta (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think with the sources above we're at GNG, but just barely. Oaktree b (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Spiderone. StAnselm (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of P._G. Wodehouse characters - In the linked sources above, in the pages that are actually available to see in the preview, I am not actually seeing anything that would be considered significant coverage. There are either just brief mentions (usually in the context of plot summary or even just direct quotes from the stories) or just his name in a list of characters that appear in a particular story without really anything further. I don't believe any of this would actually count as significant coverage that would pass the WP:GNG, and none of it really provides any type of actual content that would be able to be used to improve this as a stand alone article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of P. G. Wodehouse characters. Other than Who's Who, from what I can see Spiderone's sources are just passing mentions, and the Who's Who entry isn't much better, mostly brief plot regurgitations. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the list. Significant coverage is debatable, but this is a verifiable character with some sources that we should WP:PRESERVE. Archrogue (talk) 20:36, 6 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_December_5&oldid=1127152986"