Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 17	November 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this is a TV series that is independent from the original Jeopardy! program, a show in its own right and not a series of special episodes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Jeopardy! (2022 TV series)[edit]

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

Every iteration of Jeopardy does not need a child article. Celebrity Wheel of Fortune redirects to Wheel of Fortune (American game show)#Broadcast history. This is the same issue with the other articles for each tournament Jeopardy held annually or special tournaments which have been deleted or redirected to Jeopardy!, and this version is no more notable than those deleted/redirected articles. AldezD (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted on the page, this isn't an iteration of Jeopardy like those. It's a completely separate television show. It airs in a different time slot and on a different network. WPscatter ^t/_c 18:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
c.f. Rock & Roll Jeopardy! WPscatter ^t/_c 18:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wpscatter: Celebrity Jeopardy! redirects to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events#Celebrity Jeopardy! AldezD (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes. Other iterations of Celebrity Jeopardy have been special episodes of the normal Jeopardy show. This one is not. WPscatter ^t/_c 18:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Super Jeopardy! aired exclusively on ABC. That article was merged to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. This is the same situation with Celebrity Jeopardy! (2022 TV series). AldezD (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jeopardy. If you want this to be an article, it had better have some in-depth analysis and a laundry list of RS. Telling me where to watch and youtube aren't sufficient. Oaktree b (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG does not require a "laundry list" of RS or "in-depth" analysis. The non-routine WP:SIGCOV already in the articles from Entertainment Weekly, USA Today, and the Los Angeles Times are more than enough to pass WP:GNG. This is also supplemented by the explanation on ABC's verified youtube channel (though that alone would not count toward GNG as it is a primary source). Frank Anchor 18:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This also would need to be some ground-breaking, totally revolutionary iteration of the show, otherwise Celebrity Jeopardy is the same from one year/decade to the next. Oaktree b (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment It should be noted we do have an article for Celebrity Family Feud completely separate from the FF article, which yes, is a separate series and has been kept in a previous AfD (and has a well-sourced episode list separate to allow reference of who competed against who...which should be the same for this and WoF). I'm trying to understand why adding the heft of this series (with its own ruleset and round structure) to the already-heavy J! article is regarded as something we should be against (especially as it should have a completely different IB to boot). Nate • (chatter) 21:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That article has much more extensive sourcing than this particular article. I wouldn't call it amazing, but it has more than this one. That's just my two cents. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then the solution is improving this article's sourcing, not deleting it. WPscatter ^t/_c 01:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the very least then we'd have the players and episodes as was in the CFF episode article; surely that can be as easily sourced (even more so) as the CFF articles. Agreed with below though; no game results or recaps needed. Nate • (chatter) 05:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge to Jeopardy!#Special events per nom. I'm not convinced that we need game-by-game records of this or most other game shows. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Jeopardy!—result = merge. Separate one-time tournament. Aired exclusively on ABC. Not notable. Jep!, Rock & Roll Jeopardy! and Sports Jeopardy! are all notable adaptations. Not the same as a limited series. AldezD (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out the fate of other articles is not a valad reason to delete/redirect. Frank Anchor 18:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is an independent show from the regular series, not a special version of the regular series as past "Celebrity Jeopary"s were. Just like any other big network show, it warrants its own article. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:42, 17 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!} 23:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is definitely enough coverage and information on the show to justify it having its own article. Chagropango (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG with significant, non-routine coverage from Entertainment Weekly, USA Today, and the Los Angeles Times already included in the article. I oppose redirect as this show is distinct from the original Jeopardy! show. Frank Anchor 18:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SIGCOV - notable series. Bruxton (talk) 15:11, 25 November 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. ✗plicit 23:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamás Horváth (singer)[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. WP:ONEEVENT, and even then said event fails WP:NTELEVISION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricciardo Best (talk • contribs) 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 11 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!} 23:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem noted by the nomination isn't the biggest problem; rather, it's that we don't keep even the winners of minor reality shows, because they are so common. Bearian (talk) 14:42, 23 November 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. ✗plicit 14:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Schofield[edit]

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

Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV. Of the three sources on the page, two are considered unreliable and the third is mere namedropping. Best source I could find was a brief bio for some filmmaker programme that he mentors CiphriusKane (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom nothing from Google search. Yandeńo (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 20 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!} 23:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, and there is not enough information available to make an article. Chagropango (talk) 10:15, 19 November 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. ✗plicit 23:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Baeza[edit]

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

Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV. Only mentions for Carlos Baeza (animator) are namedrop credits CiphriusKane (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 13:57, 11 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!} 23:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and lack of any reliable sources. Directors of hit TV shows are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 14:45, 23 November 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 07:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Sosa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV. Only reliable sources I could find are just namedrop credits. Only source in the article looks dodgy based on the source title CiphriusKane (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Comics and animation. CiphriusKane (talk) 13:50, 11 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!} 23:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and lack of any reliable sources. Directors of hit TV shows are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:57, 24 November 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. ✗plicit 15:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PayPlay.FM[edit]

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

Hope this isn't unwarranted, but feels like like promotional material, as well as a lack of reliable sources סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 13:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 11 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!} 23:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to locate references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:38, 20 November 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 Unilaterally moved to draft by creating editor. Valid move to draft space as "Accidental publication". Nothing more to do here. No obstacle to re-creation (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Memphis 901 FC season[edit]

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

2023 Memphis 901 FC season

This stub has no details and no references, and so cannot satisfy general notability or sports notability. There is already a draft, which has information but no references, and is tagged as having no references, so this stub should not be moved into draft space, but should be deleted, while references are found for the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Tennessee. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft Space I believe the draft you mentioned is for the 2022. This is for 2023. This is not ready at all for main space. There's nothing there. RedPatch (talk) 01:11, 19 November 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Danny (2021)[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:Notability, WP:NWeather and is a routine storm with 0 fatalities and $5k in damage. Article had a previous merge discussion months ago (ended in no consensus with mixed opinions) and one of the main editors that opposed the merge has been topic banned from all weather-related articles indefinitely. Can be merged into 2021 Atlantic hurricane season. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NWEATHER as this storm has received significant coverage in news reports, and damage reports. From WP:NWEATHER: There is no minimum number of casualties or amount of damage required to make a storm notable. This storm was also notable as was the first system to make landfall on the U.S. state of South Carolina in the month of June since Hurricane One in 1867. There is significant coverage in multiple independent, secondary sources so this also passes WP:GNG. ProofRobust 22:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - already been discussed. Also, per @ProofRobust Hurricane Chandler (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. Sarrail (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

just wondering why you think Danny should stay but Colin shouldn't... Hurricane Chandler (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rainbow Galaxy POC (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Georgia (U.S. state), and South Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable storm, per the merge discussion. 63.44.29.199 (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per all above Hurricane Su (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources support that WP:GNG is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 Erroneous nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 04:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Le Fils de-la-femme-mâle[edit]

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

Non-notable book. WP:BEFORE search failed to find reliable sources. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Africa. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the award is notable, there is this [1] discussion of the book, this [2] both scholarly studies, this in a local newspaper [3] but it's brief. That's probably enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and about a half dozen mentions in French Gbooks. Oaktree b (talk) 22:15, 18 November 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 2022 Atlantic hurricane season. Per consensus from established editors. History is under the redirect if there is material that needs merging. Star Mississippi 19:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Colin (2022)[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:Notability or WP:NWeather guidelines. Caused no damage and a single indirect fatality. Can be merged into 2022 Atlantic hurricane season. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sockpuppet
Keep - affected the US, killed one person, and formed over land. Also decently sized. Hurricane Su (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note there is an SPI related to this discussion, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hurricane Chandler. HurricaneEdgar 12:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nowhere does the NHC assess Colin as "decently sized." Its TCR does state that it "was a short-lived tropical storm that formed offshore." Drdpw (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Decently sized article Hurricane Chandler (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. HurricaneEdgar 13:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Hurricane Su - Article size does not dictate notability whatsoever. Also the fatality was an indirect fatality as listed per NHC. It also formed over water, not land. Not sure where your logic to keep the article is actually coming from since there is no explanation as to why it passed WP:Notability OR WP:NWEATHER. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

though I may be neutral. im more to the Keep side. Brown ocean effect is not that common, but colin performed the effect, it has other stuff like 1 person killed and affected the US as User:Hurricane Su stated Rainbow Galaxy POC (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and another example is Tropical Storm Danny (2021), i know it did only 5k damages, but it caused 0 deaths. 5k damages is barely anything if it was caused by a tropical cyclone, and 0 deaths means nobody died. Colin did no damages, but it actually did 1 death. which may be equal to Danny, yet Tropical Storm Danny (2021) Still has a article. colin even performed a brown ocean effect Rainbow Galaxy POC (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No brown ocean effect was noted in connection with Colin. Drdpw (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes i agree Hurricane Su (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. HurricaneEdgar 13:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Just noting that I just nominated Tropical Storm Danny (2021) for deletion for similar reasons and an extra reason. I’m not sure which guideline specifically it is, but basically notability isn’t determined based on “This has an article, so this should as well”. (Someone who remembers it can drop a wikilink to it below.) Elijahandskip (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink: WP:OSE. Sarrail (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s it! Thank you Sarrail! So Hurricane Su & Rainbow Galaxy POC, you can read that guideline, WP:OSE, which says to avoid discussions like “What about article X” and “ There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that.” Basically saying Tropical Storm Danny (2021) exists means absolutely nothing in terms of this discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Redirect from previous statement. The impacts and meteorological history may fit into the main article, 2022 Atlantic hurricane season. I don't see a lot of sources outside of the NHC and NWS, although the sources provided do not have significant coverage of Colin. Eh, taking a look at the Colin's TCR, I do not see much impacts, considering the fact that there were no tornadoes in association with Colin and There were no reports of damage or flooding due to storm surge. And for the rainfall? I only see minor flooding, even though 3-7 inches of rain fell. Sarrail (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to take the time to reconsider. I know 1 indirect death and no damages aren't enough for an article, but let me state something here. Tagging along with Timtrent, Colin caught NHC's forecasters by surprise. No question. And Colin had already been inland when the first advisory was issued. Additionally, Colin was the last named storm before a very quiet August. And August is typically the time when multiple storms formed. Colin also cancelled multiple planned 4th of July celebrations, such as events in the Carolinas.

I'm trying not to peek into WP:OSE, I'm trying not to!

Colin also did affect the US. I know, I know we're going to yak about the fact that Colin didn't cause any damage and cause one, if not direct, indirect death. But, it cancelled events planned. Local news outlets state that an indirect death occurred when a 52-year-old man drowned in North Carolina. Makes sense to me. Sources prove that an indirect death occurred. I'd also check out the fact that Colin's formation caught forecasters by surprise, but never noted in the TCR. However, I'd like to point out that several reliable sources, including the Washington Post, as well as the NY Times, have noted this, yet again, although the TCR has not stated this. This isn't some arbitrary "Ooh, Colin caught forecasters by surprise! And no damages and 1 indirect fatality has occurred, and we're deleting this because this random, weak, tropical storm isn't notable!" It's not. It's because other primary and secondary sources have stated this, like the evidence presented above, NY Times and the Washington Post.

I would also state something in reference to Timtrent's response. They quoted,"For record-breaking storms or storms which are otherwise historical however non-impactful, academic coverage of the event or an analysis by a weather agency helps establish notability." This also has an agreement with me. Catching forecasters by surprise isn't a common thing. Forecasters track storms, mark disturbances on the hurricanes.gov website, all kinds of stuff. But Colin was relatively unnoticed and caught forecasters by surprise. And by the time they released their first advisory on the system, it was just inland. And repeating this again: This isn't a common thing.

I've reached the point where I've reached a conclusion. Colin may be resolved as keep. Per the evidence presented above. Sarrail (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarrail: You would do well to remember that Wikipedia, WPTC or WPWX are not biased towards the US and that July 4, 2022 was just a non-notable day to most people where the weather cancelled numerous events around the world. The NHC, WPC and other parts of the US NWS were already tracking the area of low pressure/storm that became Colin and had marked it as a tropical disturbance before it developed. I would also poit out that we regually go for a month or two during the hurricane season without a tropcial cyclone, which as a result does not make the final ssytem before a break notable. Hell there are even montsh that we do not record any tropcial cyclones any where in the world We also have the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season article for a reason. As i said in reply to Timtrent, all that had changed when NHC issued their first advisory was that they had more confidence that it was a tropical storm. I might be more willing to agree that Colin was notable, if some foreign newspaper such as the Fiji Times had noted its existance. The Washington Post and New York TImes do not cut it for me, since they routinely talk about tropical sytems making landfall in the US.Jason Rees (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sockpuppet
Keep - per @Hurricane Su and @Rainbow Galaxy POC. Colin is quite notable, and effected the US. Storms that directly hit the US usually have articles. Minor flooding (stated by @Sarrail) is still flooding. The NHC says no damage due to STORM SURGE, not due to Colin overall. I think Colin is notable enough to stay. Hurricane Chandler (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note there is an SPI related to this discussion, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hurricane Chandler. HurricaneEdgar 12:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:A few paragraphs after stating no storm surge damage reported, the report states regarding overall damage: There were no reports of damage associated with Colin. Drdpw (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hurricane Chandler read further in the Tropical Cyclone Report on TS Colin. In the Storm Surge² section on page 3, it does say “There were no reports of damage or flooding due to storm surge.” However, if you look on page 4 in the CASUALTY AND DAMAGE STATISTICS section, you will notice “There were no reports of damage associated with Colin. However, there was one indirect casualty. The high surf along the South Carolina and North Carolina coasts that was produced while Colin was a tropical cyclone continued into 3 July as strong winds persisted over portions of those waters after the system’s circulation had dissipated. A 52-year-old man drowned at a beach in Oak Island, North Carolina, due to the associated rough surf. So your comment about them not reporting damage from Colin overall is wrong. Also, could you explain how “Colin is quite notable” since there was no damage and 1 indirect fatality? Elijahandskip (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colin was the last atlantic storm to form before a 2 months of inactivity which broke many records. so during the inactivity people could look back at the few storms like colin. It also attacked the US mainland Rainbow Galaxy POC (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Landfalling in the US doesn’t really mean anything especially since it caused no damage. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 Atlantic hurricane season per TCR statement “The high surf along the South Carolina and North Carolina coasts that was produced while Colin was a tropical cyclone continued into 3 July as strong winds persisted over portions of those waters after the system’s circulation had dissipated. and meet to WP:NOPAGE. HurricaneEdgar 03:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect – Given the lack of notable impact or direct deaths, not to mention the thin coverage of the storm by the media, I believe that the article's preparation and impact information should be merged into the season page (and the page redirected) per the the guidance of WP:NOPAGE and WP:Notability (weather)#Tropical cyclones. Colin's impact and aftermath are insufficiently notable for a standalone article, and its story can and is fully told in the season article. Drdpw (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – I don't think this article is needed as the storm literally did almost nothing, its damages are extremely low and the only reason the storm is somewhat notable is its formation over land, but even this was retracted recently via the TCR. The article itself is quite short due to the storm's weak nature, and as others have said, there aren't many sources for the storm. Sria-72 (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sockpuppet
Keep - per @Hurricane Su MoldovaballMapping (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note there is an SPI related to this discussion, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hurricane Chandler. HurricaneEdgar 12:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how Hurricane Su’s answer shows that the storm passes WP:NOPAGE or WP:NWEATHER? Elijahandskip (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it was the last atlantic storm to form before a 2 whole months of inactivity which broke couple of records like no august storms, etc, so during the inactivity people could look back at the very few Atlantic storms that formed in 2022 such as colin Rainbow Galaxy POC (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn’t mean anything. One could also say that the first tornadic death in the US in two months means that tornado should be notable enough for an article. Talking about the Sawyerville, Alabama EF2 in early February 2022, when not a single tornadic death happened in January 2022. People obviously looked back at the latest deadly tornadoes back in December 2021, but that does not mean a non-notable EF2 deserves an article just because it was the first before a long period of inactive/non-deadly tornadoes. That logic doesn’t work for determining notability. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Your logic isn’t entirely correct, as tropical cyclones and tornadoes are different. Hurricane Su (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. HurricaneEdgar 13:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

The point is sound nonetheless, a non-notable storm does not merit an article just because there was an unusually long timespan between it and the next storm. Drdpw (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like that should just be merged in with the season summary, not exactly Colin related. Hermine really only gets by in my book because it itself was all the way by Africa. Mitch199811 (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Honestly, this isn’t a super notable storm, but not exactly sure what merging the article will gain. 63.44.29.199 (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - When we were drafting Wikipedia:Notability (weather), I deliberately threw a line in, advising people to think twice about the overall weather event at times and see if the content is best served elsewhere. In this case, I believe that the content is best served by being included in the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season. I also note that the basic rule of thumb is that a system should have had a significant impact on land, which Colin didnt.Jason Rees (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sockpuppet
Keep - per above. Hurricane Larry (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note there is an SPI related to this discussion, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hurricane Chandler. HurricaneEdgar 12:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Keep Rainbow Galaxy POC (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rainbow Galaxy POC and Hurricane Larry: Bear in mind that this AFD is not a vote and that the question that you need to answer is why we should keep the article. As a result, votes such as "Agreed with Keep" generally do not count.Jason Rees (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rainbow Galaxy POC: This is also the third time you have given a "Keep" response to the proposal; beware of overplaying your hand with these multiple !votes. Drdpw (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The issue is not whether Colin did damage or not, nor whether it was large, small, long lived or short lived. The issue is whether it passes WP:GNG. The references show that it does. Surely that is the sole requirement, significant coverage in multiple sources independent of the topic? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent Actually, that is somewhat why WP:NWEATHER exists. For all intents and purposes, Colin was similar to a fish storm. No damage and no direct fatalities. Every single tropical cyclone gets multiple independent sources on the topic, but there is no way every single tropical cyclone passes generic notability. I urge you to reconsider under WP:NWEATHER instead of WP:GNG. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijahandskip I'm grateful for the education. I will read further and may or may not change my opinion. For the present my opinion stands 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A really good example of this is by searching “Tropical Depression Eleven” 2022 in Google. When I did that, it pulled up 6 pages of sources (so easily 50+) in the news tab, that said, Tropical Depression Eleven lasted 2 days in the middle of the Atlantic with no impacts to land. Per the WP:GNG sources section, that system would easily pass with dozens of reliable sources. But for long-term notability, the system does not pass that. That is the main reason we have the section about “fish storms” not being notable. In this circumstance, Tropical Storm Colin did impact land, but it cause no damage, so there is not really a difference between Tropical Storm Colin or Tropical Depression Eleven in terms of long-term notability. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijahandskip I have made further study. To me, the significant element is The formation of Colin caught forecasters by surprise and Colin was already inland when the first advisory was issued., which suggests that Colin is notable for that reason. I note or storms which are otherwise historical however non-impactful, from NWEATHER, and feel that this is satisfied by the blue (referenced) statement. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I will at least note that the National Hurricane Center provided a good synoptic history (basically storm history) on Colin and they did not mention being surprised. That section of the Wikipedia article is however cited by a few reliable sources like this article from the Washington Post. I am glad and respect that you looked back at it and decided based on a valid reason besides using WP:OSE reasons like most of the other Keep !votes were. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: I do not bye that just because the NHC were somewhat surprised that this area of low pressure had developed into a tropical storm before it made landfall makes it notable or gives it histroical significance. At the end of the day, the system was already being monitored by NHC, local weather offices as well as the Weather Prediction Centre and all that changed is that NHC had more confidence that it was a tropical storm.Jason Rees (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect Killing one person is not enough of a reason to have an article. And now that we know it did not form because of BOE, which was what the article was barely hanging onto, there is not much else to talk about other than 4th of July in the Carolina's. --Mitch199811 (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Colin was very surprising to the NHC, and by the time it moved inland, the NHC had not even issued its first advisory. Above, @Sarrail goes in this in depth. Hurricane Chandler (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. HurricaneEdgar 13:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]
@Hurricane Chandler: Moving on inlands is not notable, and even surprising the NHC is not enough to become an article (WP:NOPAGE), “Does other information provide needed context? Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. However, tropical cyclones can form year-round. HurricaneEdgar 01:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sockpuppet
Keep - per @Sarrail (after reconsidering) Lilac Trench (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note there is an SPI related to this discussion, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hurricane Chandler. HurricaneEdgar 12:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser has confirmed that Hurricane Larry, Lilac Trench, MoldovaballMapping, Hurricane Chandler and Hurricane Su are sockpuppets (WP:SOCKSTRIKE). HurricaneEdgar 13:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – brief storm of marginal notability. The information can easily be summarized in the main article. I tried expanding it a bit a little while back and there's really nothing of importance. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:05, 26 November 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!} 23:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Church Fathers who quote the New Testament[edit]

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

Veverve and I reached the conclusion on the talk page that this list should be deleted, and replaced by a new article named Ancient works quoting the New Testament, but it would not make sense to have this list title be turned into a redirect to that new article, so it should be deleted entirely. The details are on that talk page, but I'll summarise it here:

This list has been mostly WP:UNSOURCED since it was created in 2008, which is a serious WP:V problem.
This list is probably out of scope for Wikipedia: the main motive for creating it seems to be to play a numbers game with the amount of "Church Fathers" (itself a contested term) who have allegedly quoted at least 1 part of one of the 27 books of the New Testament, no matter how small, for the purpose of Christian apologetics (WP:SOAPBOX) rather than gathering the sum of all human knowledge. Veverve and I agree that scholars generally recognise that early quotations from the New Testament, particularly before the year 450, can be extremely valuable for textual criticism of the New Testament, as well as several other things (such as early Christian theology), but
- There is no reason to centre a list of such quotations around the authors rather than those actual quotations themselves, let alone the number of authors (implicit WP:SOAPBOX)
- There is no reason to play a numbers game with these quotations either (implicit WP:SOAPBOX)
- There is no reason to list all these quotations on Wikipedia, as they would number in the tens of thousands and violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The list at https://www.biblindex.org/en/work-editions does a far better job at that than Wikipedia ever could anyway. Any significant quotation could alternatively be used in one of the subpages of Textual variants in the New Testament on a case-by-case basis.
- There is no reason to limit the contents of this list to just New Testament quotations by "Church Fathers", and in fact the list itself acknowledges that by including works that are known to have been misattributed to various Church Fathers (pseudo-so-and-so) and anonymous works. (So the current title always has been a misnomer, and a mismatch with the list's actual contents).
It would be much better to write a prose article about the importance/relevance of Ancient works quoting the New Testament in general (including but not limited to so-called patristic quotations), rather than to try to somehow salvage the contents of this one, none of which we think is reusable for our purposes. We better start from scratch, and delete this list in its entirety. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what point of view is this? Anglican, Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox? There are too many questions that would need to be answered; this has been around unsourced since 2008. Just delete it.Oaktree b (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, is the set of [Christian] Church Fathers not entirely a subset of "people who have quoted the New Testament"? Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: no: many writers suche as Lactantius, Origen or Theodore of Mopsuestia quote the NT but are not Church Fathers. Veverve (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to set the Venn diagrams up again; you're not actually disagreeing with what I wrote. :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: The answer to your question is 'Yes'. ;) That's why we think this title cannot continue to exist as a redirect, because it is misleading. There's no reason to focus on the Church Fathers, at least not from the perspective of textual criticism. From the perspective of church history and theology, the very category 'Church Father' is contested along denominational lines, as Oaktree pointed out, so this is probably not a good approach to this subject either. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still struggling to think of any sane sense of 'Church Father' which would exist without quoting the NT, so yes, I'm agreeing that it's fundamentally flawed list. Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From its first version there was a citation "UBS4", i.e. the 1993 edition of Novum Testamentum Graece (a standard text of the Greek New Testament published with various appendices). However, this may merely have been cited as the source of the criteria for inclusion, as the list does not appear to be based on that source. UBS4 is also known as Nestle-Aland 27th edition, which is available at Archive.org. Pages 74* to 76* thereof have a list of church fathers noted for patristic evidence (much the same as pages 80* and 81* in the current NA28), but the list in Wikipedia is much longer; therefore the NA publication of UBS4 was not the source of the list. Altaner and Quasten were listed as "Bibliography" from the first version of the page, so perhaps certain works by those scolars were used as sources for the list, or perhaps it was another publication of UBS4 such as Kohlenberger's (ISBN 9780310414001); but I agree that this means the list is effectively unreferenced. How about repurposing the page without its lists as a stub on "Patristic quotations"? – Fayenatic London 12:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the list is effectively unreferenced. And as I laid out on the talk page, "patristic quotations" is not a good alternative. I proposed 4 options to Veverve:
1. Patristic quotations? (would implicitly include Hebrew Bible and Deuterocanonicals)
2. Patristic quotations of the Bible? (explicitly includes them)
3. Patristic quotations of the New Testament? (leaves out all works by non-"Church Fathers")
4. Ancient works quoting the New Testament? (proposed cap: the year 500; includes everything regardless of status of author as a "Church Father")
For the reasons explained above (and in more detail on the talk page), the 4th option is best. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained on the talk page: repurposing an article "List of..." by removing the list creates a contradiction, as the title indicates the article should include... a list (cf. WP:LISTNAME). Veverve (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per further reasoning provided by Veverve in above reply. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LIST and WP:SOAP. Every part is either synthesis, or outright original research, or a random list of things having to do with quotations from the Bible. It's not our role to to post every interpretation of the scriptures and to debate their worthiness.Bearian (talk) 14:48, 23 November 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!} 23:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Gastélum[edit]

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

Article about former footballer who only played a single match in the Mexican second division during his career. Article fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources (or even unreliable sources) - just database entries and a match report. PROD was removed without providing any indication that SPORTBASIC was met. Jogurney (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G5 Only 22, former footballer? However I see too many red flags, link in article doesn't work. No record of this name is the main football player databases, there is no indication of anything. This should have been speedy deleted under G5, created by a sock. Govvy (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
G5 does not apply. Giant Snowman 13:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to indicate notability. Chagropango (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found some passing mentions like El Siglo de Torreón and Noroeste which prove that Gastélum exists but fail to establish notability. I agree with those in favour of deletion unless anyone presents anything substantial. My searches seem to hit namesakes rather than him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:47, 23 November 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!} 23:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Smith (Pentagon)[edit]

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

Article is only referenced to two permanently dead links to non-independent sources. However, on its face, it does not speak to any encyclopedic notability. Subject is a deputy assistant secretary who did some policy work. Not unimportant, but not encyclopedia material. A search for the subject yields only a few other passing mentions (see here and here), but not enough to support an article. BD2412 T 20:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 20:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All I see is a WP:ROTM public servant, doing his job. Fails WP:BIO. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable to be found. The offices he held do not make him notable. Chagropango (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, especially WP:BLP and WP:MILL, and additional reasons. First off, due to the lack of public information, this implicates BLP rules. There's not enough in this stub to give anything more than false light. Since there are about 20 such positions of United States Assistant Secretary of Defense, and none have unilateral authority to make regulations, they are not rule-making positions, thus also failing WP:POLOUTCOMES. We have since 2007 deleted many more important people's BLPs, not all of which I agreed, but now it's the consensus. What's good for the school superintendent is good for the deputy assistant secretary. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 23 November 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!} 23:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Kanning[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. All the sources I'm finding via a google search appear to be name drops or music streaming websites and are not significant coverage of the subject. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to add "Canada" at first but I wasn't sure if it would be correct. Thanks. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing for GNG, Google goes straight to his social media, then the various streaming sites, then to bandcamp and Shazam. No sourcing of any kind we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Coverage is only trivial and most sources are not independent and are primary sources. ProofRobust 23:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches did not show any significant coverage. KimOvik (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC) — KimOvik (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock puppet of Elbatli (talk · contribs). [reply]
Delete. Makes no claim of notability that would pass WP:NMUSIC, and does not cite any reliable sources to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:ROTM independent artist. BD2412 T 00:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the AllMusic article on him is bare. There's essentially zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 23 November 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. Consensus here is to Delete this article, for all of the reasons mentioned in this long discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chanale[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The principal notability claim on offer here is that she and her work exist, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself, but the referencing isn't evincing a strong pass of WP:GNG -- it's referenced primarily to WP:BLOGS and podcasts, with only limited evidence of real journalism in real WP:GNG-worthy media shown at all. It also bears mention that this was moved from draftspace by its own principal drafter (although not the original creator) a few days ago, without ever being submitted for WP:AFC review. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gnews is only hits from COLive. Gsearch is her videos, 3 pages of streaming sites then her wedding registry at "theknot". May she grow old with her spouse and live a happy life. Oaktree b (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bearcat, @Oaktree b,

While not the original drafter of this article (as noted), I have put significant follow-up editing on it after picking up its creation. I will apologize for not submitting the article to AfC for review, as it is only my second article (even if it's not one that I started and brought to approval itself), however, I will defend its worthiness for the namespace. Though I realize that Jewish artists are niche compared to the entire world as a whole, they do have a following of their own (be it for Jews, or people interested in the variety of Jewish culture), and do merit being highlighted.

I had to make a similar argument in regards to my first published article (which I did put through AfC, and which was eventually approved with considerable help from experienced editors), and the main issue that came up there seems to be the same as here. A lack of familiarity with properties such as Arutz Sheva (one of Israel's national networks) is not a reason to disregard it as a useful reference (I am referring to this interview, as referenced in the article).

Jewish personalities and artists, whether from Toronto, New York, Florida, Israel, or anywhere do deserve to be highlighted outside of Jewish spaces, and I think Chanale is of particular note because of how prolific she is. The fact that she is also a female working in a space in which only men are typically given a spotlight is quite interesting as well (especially in regard to the issues of artist credit and female erasure).

When I picked up the article, I saw a lot that didn't fit with Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality, and there was quite a lot of external linking that came across as promotional rather than informative. I put the work in to make the necessary adjustments on both fronts, as well as fix up the general writing, and add greater detail. I can still do more, if necessary, of course.

Thank you for your consideration, GreenEli (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but we need sourcing that proves notability. We can't conduct the research ourselves and need proof of widely published reviews of their work or features about them as a person in media. We aren't here to make them notable as Wikipedia isn't used as a promotional source. Perhaps unfortunate for certain segments of the population that are otherwise under-represented, but we still have to follow certain guidelines or this becomes a free-for-all and we lose any credibility Wikipedia has. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GreenEli I'm confused about the sources listed in the article because a number of them don't even mention her. I think that you've talked about a type of music and have referenced that, but sources that aren't about the person of the article are not ok. You need to remove anything in the article that isn't about her, and use only sources that give information about her. The Salt Lake Tribune is the only substantial source I see here. You need to find at least one more, one that is more than just mentioning her name. Perhaps this should be taken back as a draft and gone through AFC? Lamona (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Lamona While it wouldn't necessarily be my ideal, if a redraft and run through the AfC process is needed, I'd give running that gauntlet a go again (as noted in my previous reply, that was a considerable challenge with my first article, on Shlomo Simcha, for which I actually was the original creator, and who is an artist in the same space - except he is male, and that has, with all due respect to his talent, made his career, and, therefore, tracking of it considerably easier).

That said, I will again acknowledge that I picked up this article after it had been started by someone else. I kept certain original reference footnotes in because I thought it important to keep the point of connection, for instance, to her great grandfather, and the claim regarding his introduction of the nigun noted within the article (upon re-read, I'm now catching that that sentence was almost entirely quoted from the referenced source - problematic?). I kept the Mishpacha Magazine reference because it, while not mentioning her directly, backs the claim about the impact the song continued to have following the events which lead to its creation. This may simply been a bad use of the reference system which I kept in.

Regarding other references, I think it important to bring up, as I did in my initial defence of the article, that the first reference is an article about Chanale, the second is a nearly-16-minute interview with her, the sixth is an digital archival copy of a newspaper article prominently mentioning her, and then, as you mentioned, there's the Salt Lake Tribune article. I'm noting this alongside that defence because the consideration for deletion seems to, first, devalue how big of a deal COLLive is (I am not Chabad, myself, but I am well aware of its stature as a news source in the Orthodox world, especially Chabad - and I have seen it used as a valid source in multiple articles on Orthodox artists as well), second, disregard the fact that she was literally interviewed on a show on Israel's national network, Arutz Sheva (whether I agree with the politics of that network or not, it is a mass media network), and third (or, as far as the references go, sixth), look at cultural-specific publications as having no significance, or as being unsubstantial. I worry that such thinking could lead to cultural erasure.

(My defence excludes my addition of referencing her podcast episodes as backing of claims of those specific Jewish personalities having been featured on said podcast. I understand it may have been an inappropriate use, but I felt it was better than simply external linking to those episodes within the article lines, as that, to me, would have come across as promotional.)

All this in mind, I hope you will give this article, and its core references, further consideration for a continued place as a public article (even if it is one that requires improvement and adjustment/removal of some references). GreenEli (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are primary sources, and therefore do not support notability. Podcasts, her appearances on TV, etc., are primary sources. Sources that do not mention her do not belong in an article about her (they may be used in an article about the musical form, however). This has nothing to do with "how big a deal" anything is. To have an article it must be sourced as per WP policies. Lamona (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona I happened to check in again on this thread and was lucky enough to spot your reply. If you could, please tag me in future replies directed to me.

Thank you for the point about interviews being primary sources. I was not aware of that being an issue. WP:RS seems to suggest that secondary sources are the preferred source material, rather than entirely disqualifying primary sources, but I take your point regarding its use as a core supporting reference (though would still argue for its use as a reference in general).

Following a few minutes taken to remove Chanale's podcasts episodes as references, replacing them with external links (I am not sure that I have done so in an appropriate way, as I both believe it's important that the episodes are noted, but also do not want them to appear as promotion), and removal of externals links that do not mention her at all (please advise regarding the nigun reference), I took a few minutes to find and add a couple of additional articles from The Jerusalem Post and The Sydney Morning Herald. They should, at the very least, support the fact that who she is and what she does is notable to at least two (non-interview) international publications for her work (I realize that the SMH article quotes her, but it is not an interview about her work as a musician or content creator).

Finally, you may disagree with the use of COLLive as a reliable source, but the fact is that it's been used as one since at least 2014 (based on my dive into a couple of View History sections of some long-existing articles). That is well before I began dipping my toes into editing here. I get that "how big a deal" something is wasn't a particularly good defence of its importance (that was on my mind at the time of writing and, admittedly, it was lazy), but my concern is that what you are suggesting borders on promoting cultural erasure. If Jewish culturally significant information sources (even within the subset of Orthodoxy) are considered unreliable sources, what other groups' culturally significant information sources are unreliable because they don't meet your standard for what WP should consider as RS? I do not like the fact that the question comes out as it does, but that is the question that comes to mind here. Please keep in mind that I am not even Chabad or ultra-Orthodox, but this concerns me.

I've continued to make other edits while writing this reply. Please read through, and comment/provide assistance as necessary.

Thank you GreenEli (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GreenEli No where did I or anyone say that "Jewish culturally significant information sources" are not reliable sources. COLLive is probably a reliable source, but the COLLive articles here are not significant sources because they are only mentions of her. A significant source is one that gives a good deal of information about the topic. A one or two sentence mention that a person appeared or performed is not significant. See WP:SIGCOV. It is generally thought that one needs at least two significant sources for an article, and especially for biographical articles. My guess is that more thorough sources may be found in sources in Hebrew, which means enlisting someone with those language skills to fill in what is missing here. Lamona (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We'd consider a peer-reviewed journal as the gold standard for sourcing, then a feature in something like the New York Times (or other prominent newspaper or magazine) about the individual, then a book chapter/entire book about them. Then the sourcing quality goes down from there. The more sources you can provide like the first two or three examples I've listed would help; interviews can't be used as a primary source, but can be used to flesh out the article once we have decent primary sources. If the subject doesn't have any mentions in any of these, there isn't much we can do to keep the article on Wikipedia. Notability standards are used here to help prove notability, thus helping to build a credible encyclopedia. Otherwise, this would be just a random collection of just about anything, from memes to video game characters to anyone who creates an article on xyz subject. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the sources mentioned again, and I still don't see GNG. I can't find any others that have popped up since my !vote above. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was hoping that the creator could find more sources. I haven't found any that would bring this up to a keep level. I'd recommend that GreenEli keep a draft of this around in case some better sources are published in the future. The other thing to keep an eye out for is for her music to appear on a national music chart. (See WP:NMUSIC). I tried to look at the Israeli charts but, but course, they are in Hebrew so I couldn't check them. Lamona (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lamona Please note, again, that I am not the creator of this article. There was the original creator, and another two people prior to my picking it up (Keith D appears to have been someone who took the original pass at reviewing the article, though I am unsure.)

I have time to edit this article when I have time, so the fact that I have not replied since last Wednesday doesn't mean that I've either been unable to find additional sources, nor that I've abandoned the article or my defense of it. As you point out, Hebrew language sources are tough to work with if you don't have an understanding of the language. I do, however, it's at a lower-to-middle level, so I have to jump between reading (slowly), using Google Translate, and then double-checking the words that Google Translate is translating to see if they make contextual sense. That takes time.

I appreciate that you're at least willing to consider some of the sources from which this article started, though I'm still not understanding what your issue with the COLLive articles is. If it is, as you admitted "probably a reliable source", then how is the very first reference (literally an article about how her move from Florida to Israel inspired the creation of one of her albums) not significant? It's about her, and it's not a couple of sentences. Along that line, and probably with greater significance, The Texas Jewish Post article is about an event, but features a mini-bio on her, over the two pages on which the article appeared in that paper (Top half of page 7 and bottom of page 21). That, too, is not just a couple of sentences. It's not a national Jewish publication, like the Canadian Jewish News, but it is a real publication and still exists to this day. And you already said that the Salt Lake Tribune article already met the standard. That's three, before even noting the interviews, or the passing mentions (and, again, the reference about her great grandfather, which, again, I need advice on how it should appear properly, if not being used as a reference).

This, however, brings me back to my previously-noted concern, especially with Oaktree b's commentary. If it's not a North American (or, what, European?) publication, it's not "prominent" enough? Comparing her to a meme is just degrading. She's not a passing joke, and is obviously known and established within the Jewish world. Beyond that, what Oaktree is saying is precisely the kind of issue I was raising with my previous reply to you, just far worse. Not only is it disqualifying a culturally significant publication as a source, because they don't deem it prominent enough, it's also (I would assume, completely unknowingly) helping the already heavy push for the erasure of women from ultra-Orthodox establishment, by only allowing male ultra-Orthodox artists to get recognition in these spaces. Is Oaktree's plan to start hunting down and eliminating Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jewish artists from WP? What kind of message does that send?

I will continue to find more sources in both English and Hebrew as possible, but the Hebrew ones will take more time.

I'd integrate more sources like the following, but, based on the previous discussion, have to assume they don't meet the standard:

A debate article between Orthodox Jewish artists and comedian Mendy Pellin from the Jewish News Syndicate (a Jewish wire service) - the article appears in other Jewish publications, but I saw that JNS is the source.

A short interview with her in Kveller (it's short and an interview, so that must be a double-hit against it)

This Hebrew-language article that I found from the major Israeli site Walla!, but still have to translate (I only just found the article, so it's going to take me a bit to translate)

This nearly-12-minute interview with her on major Hebrew-language site, Kikar HaShabbat (website) (it's Hebrew, so it would take a while to translate, and, again, it's an interview) GreenEli (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's the "reliable sources" as here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources. Interviews are a primary source, we can use them to flesh out an article but not as a main sourcing text. I've not commented on the ethnicity or source country of the sources, a reliable source is a reliable source. I really don't care if it's African, Haitian or North American, the source needs editorial oversight and one that checks facts is best. You have one decent source, the rest aren't RS (reliable sources) as given in the list I've shared at the start of this comment. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should make a decision on this one way or another, I feel SNOW is coming. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b Can you please clarify:

A) What the SNOW comment means?

B) Which is the one decent source to which you're referring, and what makes that one a better reference than the others?

C) How the Perennial sources list you shared doesn't even include The Jerusalem Post. For that matter, how it's possible that neither Arutz Sheva/Israel National News, nor The Times of Israel appear either, but Haaretz, a left-wing Israeli publication is (and is the only Israeli publication that's on the list, period). I am not even in the same political spectrum as INN or The Times of Israel, but those are internationally-recognized publications, not purely culturally-significant ones. To say that list of sources isn't exactly comprehensive would be an understatement.

Lamona I haven't heard back from you (perhaps you have other things you're attending to, as I was regarding my delayed reply). Do you have any further input? I still have to properly read through and translate the Hebrew articles, but, that aside, are you able to address the other parts of my previous reply. Beyond that, if I have not made this clear in previous replies, I want to ensure that I am properly using the sources being referenced, be they the existing ones, or new ones, and I have been requesting some guidance in that regard. Have you taken any issue with the use of the existing references (I keep bringing up the one about Chanale's great grandfather, and how to properly mention that, since it has already been noted that non-mentions cannot be references), and, if so, how would you like them to be corrected?

GreenEli One of the problems that you have is that there is a fair amount of content in the article that is not sourced. Especially in biographical articles it is essential that all information be cited to a specific source. Any information that is not sourced should be removed and may be removed by other editors. A statement like: "The song left a lasting impression on Fried's fanbase...." absolutely has to have a source. And the sources cited have to have the content that is written in the article. The #1 source does not say that she is a "classically trained guitarist". The #2 source does not support the statement about her great grandfather, at least I can't find anything with her name in that document. The "significant sources" problem is that if you delete everything in the article that is not in one of the cited sources you will have a very thin article. Most of the sources say only a small amount about her. It's tedious, but you have to demonstrate where all of the information comes from. If you can't provide sources at this time, but think that you will be able to in the future, one option is to take a copy of the article as a draft and give yourself the time to complete it. Lamona (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this exaggerates the difficulty a bit. It's not a problem for AFD if the article contains unsourced material or that it would be short if unsourced material is removed, that's just a cleanup problem. As long as there's enough information for a short article that's fine as long as the information is reliable and the coverage is significant. Jahaza (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lamona Thank you, once again, for taking the time to consider the subject and sources, and to reply. If you look at the article's history since I picked it up, you'll likely notice the things that I did end up removing because they were either too promotional, or had nothing to back them up. I kept may other elements because, to me, it didn't make sense that they would fit as unsubstantiated claims up for scrutiny or potential debate.

In terms of the Fried song, that's a bit of a funny one, because I ended up removing that reference in response to your earlier points about sources having to mention the subject. The originally-referenced Mishpacha Magazine article (a 2019 article about the 2001-performed song and its impact on the author) didn't mention Chanale (this comes down both to issues of crediting the people involved with the creation of music in general and, more specifically to this, of crediting women in religious Jewish works). So, while the reference backed the claim, it had to go!

Regarding the #2 source you listed, it sounds like you're referring to reference #3. This was the one I've brought up multiple times in my previous comments, saying that I understand that it needs to be removed as a reference because, as noted, it doesn't mention her - but that it, like the Mishpacha article, is directly related to the claim being made (in this case, about her great grandfather).

Now, I'm still happy to continue putting the effort in on bolstering the article with more sources as I find them and am able to translate them (though I've spent much of the little time that I have available to work on this taking part in this discussion rather than actually doing that part), but I'm also confused because someone like Jahaza is coming in and saying that a short article is not a problem (while also saying that they don't find the coverage to be significant in their own comment [or just that the SLT and JNS articles would not be significant coverage by themselves?]). I've seen WP articles that are a couple of lines long, with minimal referencing, or articles about people with a single reference that was just a record of employment from their workplace's website, and they're up without issue (and I would not advocate for them to be taken down for the same reasons I've noted earlier about those peoples' cultural significance), so I just end up being left wondering why an article like this, longer and with better references than those gets such scrutiny.

It doesn't mean I won't put the effort in to keep improving upon what was left when I got here, and on what I added/altered, but you can't blame me for wondering about the whole thing. GreenEli (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, if I do have to take this back through AfC (as I said from your initial input, it's not my ideal, but I would do it were it deemed necessary), what is the process for doing that so the existing article can be preserved and further improved? GreenEli (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW means we're just turning around in circles. I have no further comments on the rest of it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much that it's foregone conclusion that this will get deleted or not deleted, just that we've talked about it enough at this point. Let's just decide one way or another and move on with life. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b Still new to the editor lingo. Thanks for explaining that.

I'm not sure how you can have no further comment when I am requesting a direct answer to a direct statement you made. You stated that one of the sources is RS. Which is it, and what makes it better than the other ones (especially given the points in my reply, yesterday, to Lamona)?

Of course it will get deleted or not. That's the point of the discussion.

But you're talking about removing one of (if not the) first female ultra-Orthodox Jewish musicians to have an article written about her on this platform, and an article that's better-referenced than some of her male peers, and even the longer-established, bigger names in that space, using (at least) the exact same publications used as reference for those articles. That's before even getting to the source use of a print publication that's been around since 1947 and has an editorial structure (or at least had - I don't read it, and it was already a reference before I picked up the article). And I was still willing to put the extra work in to find "better" sources!

I don't dare mention a single one of those artists, because I actually do worry about the deletion nomination spree you may decide to go on. I may not have created this article, and I may not be of her sect (I don't even share her political views), but I do stand by its importance in the turn toward recognition and representation for women in ultra-Orthodox Judaism. And, if it wasn't clear, I stand by the importance of Jewish representation on a platform like WP in general, because even ultra-Orthodox Jews deserve to be highlighted and discovered (and not just ones that appear in the NYTimes). GreenEli (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing further to say about this to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I'm concerned that there may be undiscovered sources offline and/or in Hebrew and Yiddish and in the Jewish press here in New York and elsewhere. I would add that it does not, in fact, bear mentioning that the article was created in draft space and moved to mainspace without WP:AFC review, as AFC remains an optional process and that the article was not created through that process has no bearing on the deletion criteria.--Jahaza (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd note that several of the comments above seem to be unaware of the Salt Lake Tribune and Jewish News Service articles, which are solid contributions to substantial coverage, but not enough by themselves. Jahaza (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. That's an interesting note, regarding the method by which I moved the article following my picking up of its editing. I'll probably still put articles I create personally through AfC going forward, nonetheless (and if it's possible to do the same with drafts I pick up, like this one, I would do the same as well). The process was difficult with the article I personally created and put through the AfC process, but it was approved in the end.

I'll say that it's disappointing to see that the SLT and JNS articles would not be enough to fortify the arguments for keeping the article (though I've yet to actually add in mention of the JNS piece within the article itself, at this point. I was more interested in looking into the Hebrew-language sources of which I know (and others I might not yet have found) before adding in the JNS piece (unless you think it's worthwhile adding it in sooner). I just haven't had the time to devote to properly sitting down, reading, and translating them over the past few days (heck, I've barely had time for these replies).

Not happy with the further vote for deletion, of course, but I do appreciate that you took the time to fully consider the article and its sources (even ones that have only been discussed thus far). GreenEli (talk) 01:10, 24 November 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 Wacław Rzewuski and redirect after merger has been performed. Evidence of WP:SIGCOV has not really been provided, and other claims to notability are contested. Moreover, even if the Order or her title granted some measure of notability, absent SIGCOV the argument for a standalone article is much weakened; subjects that meet our standards for encyclopedic coverage do not require standalone articles if that coverage can be sensibly provided within a larger topic. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Lubomirska (died 1763)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Notable only as a relative of other people. Reversion to a redirect to her husband Wacław Rzewuski is being resisted. Lithopsian (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She is notably enough as a diarist. I do not understand why is a problem with Polish noblewomen when nobody want to delate article about members of English noble families. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not the case that nobody wants to delete articles about members of English noble families. Just in the last two months we had Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Howard, 22nd Earl of Suffolk, which ended as a redirect; and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews, which was kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try change Anne of Gloucester to redirect. Good luck. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Herzog von Teschen What sources say that she was an important diarist? I am all for saving this, but we need soruces, not claims. The article doesn't say this, and you didn't provide any soruces. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All diarists from the 18th Century are important enough to have a biographical entry. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What policy supports this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the subject is notable as a diarist, then we need more information in the article about that (reliably sourced). When were her diaries published? Who published them? What is notable in those diaries? Are they still in print? I assume that a lot of the relevant sources will be in Polish, so I would recommend Polish-speaking editors to at least give us more sources in hopes that some of them will be accessible via online translation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose that Lithospian and Onel5969 checked sources first before making a redirect. Didn't they? Herzog von Teschen (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her husband, Wacław Rzewuski, where she is listed in the infobox. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wacław Rzewuski. Dubious stand-alone notability, but redirects are cheap. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important She received the Order of the Starry Cross and has a biographical note in a biographical dictionary (Dunin Borkowski, Panie polskie przy dworze rakuskim). Herzog von Teschen (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to find anything about her. It's not an easy search because there was someone with the same name in the 1600's who gets a lot of mentions, and there is even someone with that very name writing today. I note that her one publication is listed in VIAF under the name "Rzewuska, Anna". Her daughter seems to have had extensive correspondence with Honore de Balzac, which was published, but she herself does not appear in Google Books or in any databases that I can search. Lamona (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Herzog von Teschen: If you access offline sources, please show them like this [4] via Camshot. It would help. Taung Tan (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's online, I will add url. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable historical nobility figure and princess consort. I found this historical source in the Polish language [5] has a biography and discussion on her royal portrait, - that states [sig]: W 1748 r. w Wiedniu zostałauhonorowana najwyższą austriacką państwową odznaką dla kobiet – Orderem Gwiaździstego Krzyża (In 1748, she stayed in Vienna honored with the highest Austrian state badge for women - the Order Starry Cross). Clearly paasses WP:ANYBIO as recevied the highest Austrian state badge for women. extra- Searching with her name in Polish, "Anna z Lubomirskich" has some sources. Taung Tan (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That she was a "princess" does not mean she was royalty (royalty is always notable), she was married to a noble prince, not a royal prince, and nobility are not automatically notable.--Aciram (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable person and the Order of the Starry Cross meets WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no personal relevance in her article. An individual should only have an article if they have personal relevance. Her article only contains geneaological information, nothing about her as an individual: no acts of importance, only names and dates. Regardless of nationality, no person (except royalty) should have an article in wikipedia just because they belong to a certain family. If the family is important, it is enough to have an article about the family, not each individual from it. The Order, it seems, were given to many people just because of their social status, and not because they had performed any particular act themselwes.--Aciram (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aciram: Noo...you are wrong. Royalty are not always notable.... What policy supports this? I've deleted many royalty articles around the world. I reject your comment. the Order Starry Cross is important award per source say. All recipients are notable and are high-ranking members of royal and noble families. Taung Tan (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royalty are almost always regarded to be notable. Nobility is not. Royalty and nobility is not the same thing. They are not judged the same way so they should not be compared. To be given an Order does not necessarily make a person notable. She was only given the order because she was noble, and because of this, the Order does not make her notable. If she had been given the Order because she had performed some sort of notable act, then the Order would have made her notable. But because she was given the Order only because she was a noble, the Order does not make her notable.--Aciram (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly bias on royalty!!! First, you need to know who I am! I only create royalty articles on Wikipedia and am an expert on Asian monarchy. You also need to understand what WP:ANYBIO is ! It is not a joke but a policy. Taung Tan (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridicoulous. Since you choose to insult me with calling me bias for nothing I will not dignify you with further response. This person has no relevance in her article and that's it.--Aciram (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to husband - the article is more than old enough to meet WP:R#HARMFUL. No need to get bogged down in yet another fruitless discussion about merit vs status vs sources. Ingratis (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment according to pl:Order_Krzyża_Gwiaździstego, The Highly Noble Order of the Starry Cross ( German Hochadeliger Sternkreuzorden , Hungarian Hölgyi Csillagkereszt-rend ) - until 1918 the highest women's order of Austria and Austria-Hungary. Clealy satifies WP:ANYBIO. Why are users not aware of this? It is not fair. Wikipedia accepts stub articles if the subjects are notable. @Necrothesp: what do you think admin? Taung Tan (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per reference to WP:ANYBIO, that section states: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." So with the award the person is likely to be notable but not guaranteed to be notable. Saying that this clearly satisfies ANYBIO is a bit of an exaggeration. I personally would like for there to be at least one source explaining WHY she received this award. I did a search on her name in the #3 source here (Jerzy Sewer Dunin Borkowski: Panie polskie przy dworze rakuskim. Lwów 1891, p. 77.) and her name there is Anna Lubomirskich Rzewuska. I'm hoping that page gives sufficient info, but I'll have to try to translate it in order to find out. Lamona (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona: Thanks, Please also look on this [6] if you can read Polish. Thansk. Taung Tan (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taung Tan No, I do not read Polish but after doing a bunch of pasting into Google Translate what I get from this is that it is about a painting that was done of her. She is said here to have been given the starry cross but nothing says why. About her we only learn whose daughter she was and who she married. If I have missed some key information in this document, please let me know. Otherwise, merging to her husband's page seems the most sensible thing to do. Lamona (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input from additional users would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge She maybe a diarist, but without sourcing, we can't keep the article. For all of the 10 lines (give or take) of text it is, we could simply plunk it down in her husband's article and call it a day. She might be an interesting subsection in his article, but appears to be lacking sourcing for her own article. I'm not seeing GNG, but she could help flesh out the the spouse's article, thereby giving her some sort of coverage. Or let me explain it this way: she's notable when we discuss him. We take him out of the equation, she isn't notable as she doesn't appear to have done much on her own that isn't noted in relation to the spouse. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel like if her notability rests on being a diarist, I need to see those diaries in published form. Her other claim is belonging to the Order of the Starry Cross. Even after reading the article, I can't get a grasp on it. Do you get that because of something you DO, or just because you're born into nobility? The Polish-language version says (via Google Translate, and what in the WORLD did we do before that?) The number of ladies of the order is unlimited, but admission to the ranks of the recipients requires a strict proving of nobility (German: Adelsprobe ), which requires eight noble generations on the father's and mother's side and sixteen noble ancestors of the spouse. This makes it sound as though just being born into a strict line of nobility qualifies you. Joyous! | Talk 01:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Order was simply given to women because of their social rank, not because they had performed any particular act of merit. That makes the Order irrelevant to her notability. The only possible relevance hangs on the word "diarist", but there is only one word about it, a word that is not sourced and gives no further hint about it. It might even be put there by mistake for all we know. --Aciram (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Notability is a stretch, reference links don't work, information is scarce, even in Polish. Although she may have received a notable award, we have no information about why to include in the article, and the other Anna Lubomirska seems to be quite a bit more notable, although not all that notable herself. For this reason, it does meet WP:R#HARMFUL, and there is no real harm or loss from merging her to her husband. Chagropango (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep. She won an award, Order of the Starry Cross, which was only granted to women of high birth. I think she meets my own standards for consorts of nobility. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 23 November 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!} 22:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sharanya Pradeep[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. AmirŞah~~ 17:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)(sock strike. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. AmirŞah 17:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not done any significant role in the films listed in the article. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ 17:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Besides Fidaa, her role in Baama Kalapam is also significant. She is listed as main cast in Gaalivaana as well. The filmography is about 13. So definitely accounts as significant person. Sivaraj (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability guidelines. Most coverage comes from her role in 1 film in which she didn't play a major role. Searches show that coverage in other sources is trivial. ProofRobust 23:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She is an up and coming artist. She is not being talked because she is being cast in poor person roles like maid, even if the role is big like in Baama kalapam. Sivaraj (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sivaraj: "Up and coming" basically means "not yet notable". In rough terms, on Wikipedia, "she's talked about" equals "notable". "Should be talked about but isn't talked about because of reasons" does not equal notable. Largoplazo (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject has not got lead roles in multiple notable films as required for WP:NACTOR and there are no indications for GNG either. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NACTOR. First off, it seems to have been written by a 6th grader. It uses qualitative language about her roles ("bagged the role ... she acted in several ... she landed a major role ... reprising the role ... [she] is a hoot ... apt ... and brings a depth to the film."). None of that is quantifiable, but rather entirely opinion. A major re-write would have to be done. Technically, there is not significant coverage required for biographies of living persons. I also note that it has all of the telltale signs for deletion. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 23 November 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 MUD. Selectively merge, without original research details. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MUD trees[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Just a list of family trees. What is it for? סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 12:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without a valid rationale for deletion. Article includes a lede section, citations and "See also" which should answer the nom's questions. Elizium23 (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Merge or rewrite I'm looking at this and it seems like a lot of this is WP:OR or WP:SYN. Is there actually a reliable source that has documented these relationships as a tree? This might be appropriate for merge into MUD, or rewritten as prose. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No reason was given for deletion, so it appears the rationale is more or less WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not knowing what MUDs are isn't a valid rationale for deleting articles about them. -Vipz (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MUD. 100% with @Shooterwalker. This list is chock full o' original research. The fact that one codebase descended from another can be covered in context in the individual notable codebase articles or generalized in the parent article. The article's sources do not assert the independent notability of "MUD trees" from their codebases. It's a bunch of passing mentions used to justify a dedicated article of tree templates. czar 04:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring my comment to agree. We could synthesize trees for all sorts of game lineages based on who was influenced by who, but it would be outside the scope of Wikipedia. We don't do original research. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm coming at this with no technical background, but in looking at the two "merge" comments above.... Czar says the article is full of orginal research, and Shooterwalker agrees and brings in the idea of synthesis issues. So, my question is: What is in the article that should be merged? Joyous! | Talk 18:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as it looks like consensus is divided between those advocating Keeping this article and those proposing to Merge it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this is too technical for the average joe without explaining what it is or why it's important/why we need a flowchart for it. Oaktree b (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merge which part? Joyous! | Talk 18:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't understand what it is, so I'm not sure. I'd suggest a merge to the main MUD article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a flowchart, it's simply a family tree of which code was derived from which codebase. I'm not sure what sort of technical knowledge would be necessary to understand a concept that exists in all sorts of disciplines. You don't seem to know what a flowchart looks like in actuality. I guess that's a level of technical knowledge we don't need here. Elizium23 (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even more proof that this article is too technical and would be better served in the main MUD article I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joyous!, re: what to merge, there really isn't a lot since there is no sourced text, but I would merge the Bartle quotes where relevant. Otherwise it's functionally a redirect as a valid search term and should link to a section that describes how MUD codebases are interrelated. czar 19:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The part worth keeping/merging are the reliable third party sources. The relationship between the code bases can be described in the main MUD article in prose. But as a stand-alone article, this fails WP:OR, WP:NOT, and the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: you say it fails these 3 things. Why didn't the nominator bring any of that up? Elizium23 (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask them. But Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and a procedural issue shouldn't be a reason to reject a proposal that makes sense. There just isn't another video game genre that has a stand-alone article with a mostly graphical family tree. The proper way to cover these topics is in prose, in the main article about the genre. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see a valid reason to delete this, this is a waste of everyone's time. Peetrstahl (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strip out original research and merge to MUD or List of MUDs per Shooterwalker, Czar. There's a lot of speculation/synthesis in here based on not a lot of sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Axem Titanium. These trees are WP:OR and even though they are interesting they are not found in independent sources. Wikipedia:STICKTOSOURCE. Keep the reliable part and write it somewhere as prose, not original diagrams. Archrogue (talk) 01:24, 23 November 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. After discounting the opinion by LaundryPizza03 which makes no sense, and that by WStrBinA which makes no argument, the strength of argument favors deletion. The "delete" side provides arguments in terms of applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, whereas the one remaining "keep" argument amounts to WP:USEFUL, which is a weak argument. Sandstein 09:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thermic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As it stands this is an invalid disambiguation page because all the entries are WP:Partial title matches: none of them are known solely as "Thermic". Whilst Thermics redirects to Thermodynamics, there is no mention of "Thermic" in that article. A page of WP:PTMs is harmful because it obscures Search and makes it more difficult to find pages that aren't listed. The page has a history, but my opinion is that we're better off deleting it to facilitate uninhibited Search. I don't believe there's a suitable redirect target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete key peroxide nomenclature. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There does seem to be some scope for disambiguation here. In instances in Sierra de Almijara it refers to warm climate, in ustic and vertisol it refers to warm soil, but in thermic siphon and Thermic fluid heater it refers to the transfer of heat from one place to another (?) and in negative-calorie food it refers to the effect of food on body heat. In all of these cases it is "thermic", rather than the "X-thermic" of all the entries on the dab. But I'm not sure there are suitable link targets for any of these. Maybe we could instead consider a soft redirect to wikt:thermic? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to Thermic reaction without leaving a redirect or delete. I agree with the nom that the dab page in its current state is inadequate, there are many more partial title matches not readily accessible to users due to its existence. I considered retargeting to thermodynamics (as the adjective form of thermics, akin to thermodynamic) or heat transfer or most encompassing, heat, but these articles don't use the term and in the spirt of WP:NOTDIC it would be best to lead users to search results and a link to the Wiktionary entry. Thermics should continue to redirect to thermodynamics. All that said, the dab page was for 3 years at Thermic reaction, which now redirects there. I don't think we should delete Thermic reaction along with this, and in fact, a reworked version of Thermic would be an appropriate set index at that title. However, a normal move does not address the above concerns regarding the current title. So either suppress-move to the previous title to preserve page history (a bit WP:IAR, since it doesn't fit normal suppression criteria), or setindexify over the redirect at Thermic reaction prior to deletion of Thermic. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Our core readership, students, will look for this. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:03, 11 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!} 16:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The word "thermic" on its own doesn't have enough "meaning" that someone is likely to look for it. As the page stands, it's just a set of article titles that contain that set of letters. Joyous! | Talk 19:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And I'll suggest also letting "Thermics" redirect to this disambiguation page. (I'm probably nearly on the same page as Bearian, 19:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WStrBinA (talk • contribs)

Hello, WStrBinA, today is November 21st, not November 10th. I think you copied some of Bearian's comment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 22 November 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. Given that all of the Keep voters (and one Delete voter) are sockpuppets, I would not be surprised to see this article recreated in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Levi C. Maaia[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Most sources are unreliable, primary, or not independent. There don't seem to be any good sources about him. Fram (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and Rhode Island. [User:Fram|Fram-en] (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article with independent sources and removed unreliable and not independent sources. I have included information about his film awards as well as congressional testimony to support his notability [User:Cinecubano12381|Cinecubano12381-en] (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my opinion, this article would be better to be nominated for speedy deletion. The sources of the article are deeply awful! For example, the first reference is IMDB, in second one he only is mentioned at the end article and other sources are unreliable. [User:Alimovvarsu|Alimovvarsu-en] (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree that the sources are awful. The first link is to an IMDB awards listing page which is backed up by source 23 from the festival itself. The second source is a Boston Globe op-ed written by the subject (which is why he is mentioned at the end author's bio). [User:Mar3ini|Mar3ini-en] (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article cites a wide variety of local and regional news sources (e.g. The Boston Globe, East Bay Newspapers/EastBayRI.com, East Providence Reporter/reportertoday.com, Santa Barbara Independent) as well as a few well regarded TV and business trade publications (TVTechnology, Businesswire, Providence Business News). There are also a couple primary sources but most all of those are backed up by citations to news coverage and other independent sources. It seems that there is some noteworthiness; additional citations would further improve the article. [User:Mar3ini|Mar3ini-en] (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since initial publication, the article has been modified to remove unreliable and, where possible, primary sources that did not have independent sources providing additional verification. Several well-respected news sources were also added, particularly regional sources. Overall, I believe that these modifications, changes and additions demonstrate a person of notability in their geographic region, fields of study and industry.[User:Cinecubano12381|Cinecubano12381-en] (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't see which sources are supposed to give notability. The Boston Globe, cited by Mar3ini in their "keep", is a letter to the newspaper by Maaia, not an article about Maaia. Businesswire, also cited by Mar3ini, is a press release publisher, not an independent source. The EastBayRI source[7] doesn't even mention Levi. The Santa Barbara Independent source is a column[8]. Something like TVTechnology is just a very passing mention.

Let's try WP:THREE: what are the 3 best sources you have to establish notability for Maaia? Fram (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These four sources should sufficiently establish the subject's notability in the sphere of executive leadership in education and technology to a level that exceeds the current threshold in many other published articles about notable people in media and education.

This citation establishes that the subject was covered as a notable businessperson early in his career in telecommunications and broadcasting.

Nesi, Ted (2009-08-19). "Five Questions With: Levi C. Maaia". Providence Business News. Retrieved 2022-11-12.

[9]https://pbn.com/five-questions-with-levi-c-maaia44311/

This citation is a critical review of the subject's radio program.

Jun 01, Colin Marshall Tue; 2010 | 6:00am (2010-06-01). "Morning Radio, but Interesting". The Santa Barbara Independent. Retrieved 2022-11-10.

[10]https://www.independent.com/2010/06/01/morning-radio-but-interesting/

This citation further establishes the subject's notability in telecommunications and education when public radio news covered his appointment to a NASA program committee.

"South Coast Man Helps With Education Efforts Linked To International Space Station". KCLU. 2017-05-30. Retrieved 2022-11-12.

[11]https://www.kclu.org/local-news/2017-05-30/south-coast-man-helps-with-education-efforts-linked-to-international-space-station

This citation establishes the subject's notability as an award-winning filmmaker in the Los Angeles Independent Film Festival.

"Alumnus Levi Maaia directs award-winning film "Pathways to Invention" | The Gevirtz School (GGSE) - UC Santa Barbara". education.ucsb.edu. Retrieved 2022-11-12.

[12]https://education.ucsb.edu/news/2022/alumnus-levi-maaia-directs-award-winning-film-%E2%80%9Cpathways-invention%E2%80%9D Cinecubano12381 (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The University one is not independent, an institution writing about their alumni is a related source. The Independent.com source is a column, again not a source accepted to establish notability. Which leaves us with a very short article from a local radio station, and the Providence Business News. Not really convincing to me, others may disagree of course. Fram (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmirŞah 16:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as explained above, the sources are pretty much useless. I don't see much more we can use for sourcing. Socks also tell me this isn't notable. If you have to create a fake account to support your case, it likely isn't notable (or it would stand by itself). Oaktree b (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits are straight into his social media channels, something called flyways then a podcast. He was appointed to city council, then it peters off to nothing. Nowhere near GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the two keep votes so far have been blocked as sockpuppets and very likely have a major WP:COI with the article subject. Fram (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Delete opinion was also from a sockpuppet. And none of them seemed to know how to sign their comments. Maybe this AFD should be run a second time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)×××[reply]

FYI, the relist was from another sock. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of a lack of independent sources. I was hopeful about The Reporter Today link but it allows you to post your own articles and photos and there is no independent by-line on the article. Mostly what we have is articles by him, and ones coming directly from his employers. Lamona (talk) 16:41, 19 November 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. czar 18:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super Chase: Criminal Termination[edit]

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

Several issues for multiple years, plus no references in the main article body. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 12:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most games before a certain point were hard to distribute without a major investment, and that usually led to some verifiable record that they came out. The problem is these are usually print sources that are hard to find. But I found them. Someone should also check Japanese sources if they can. Archrogue (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Archrogue. Although the article is in heavy need of cleanup, the game itself does seem to fulfil notability criteria. Ding Chavez (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmirŞah 16:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviewed in several contemporary magazines as demonstrated in the article plus [13] [14] and [15] plus Retro Gamer [16]. The article's title should be changed to Super Chase H.Q. though as that seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:52, 21 November 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 and retitle, with a title to be determined. There is consensus that the sequence of events here is notable, but there is little support for a standalone biography. There is insufficient discussion here to decide between "Death of Michal Sela" and "Michal Sela Forum"; the arguments in favor of the former are slightly stronger, in my view, as that title has a broader scope that could include the NGO; but a talk page discussion is likely needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Sela[edit]

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

A social worker who suffered a tragic death which was reported in the country of her death. She does not appear to be a notable person. Does not meet WP:GNG. Bruxton (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bruxton (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Israel. Skynxnex (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this recently-created article may be more clearly notable as an WP:EVENT article, because the NGO later founded [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] is a WP:LASTING effect with a broad WP:GEOSCOPE. As another alternative, there appears to be support for WP:ORG notability in sources about the NGO. Either way, alternatives to deletion appear to exist. Beccaynr (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would a merge to the NGO be appropriate? This isn't in my field of knowledge (NGO's and the like). Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think a move to Michal Sela Forum is likely supported per the WP:NGO guideline, based on my initial search for sources, and this title is a more likely search term than the preceding event of her murder (and a redirect from Murder of Michal Sela to the Michal Sela Forum article can also be created). Beccaynr (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC) - unbold 'move', per comment with keep !vote below Beccaynr (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think that being stabbed to death makes a person notable. If it did there would many millions of notable people worthy of Wikipedia articles. In addition, I have a question: is it possible that there has been a confusion with her near homonym Michael Sela, also Israeli but not a relation as far as I know, who until he died this year was the oldest living distinguished biologist? Athel cb (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing alternatives to deletion is within deletion policy, because If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page, but there appears to be no confusion between a dead male scientist who lived for a long time and a woman whose untimely death from domestic violence has had notable impacts documented by multiple independent and reliable sources over time. Additional sources include Wired, and national coverage of political impacts and an exhibition at the UN. Alternatives to deletion include refocusing the article on the NGO founded after her death, or refocusing the article on her murder, because sources can support articles under different notability guidelines (which do not include subjective importance). Beccaynr (talk) 11:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unlike victims of terrorist attacks, victims of domestic abuse - like victims of professional criminals - are typically murdered one at a time. This creates a situation where domestic murders often are not notable. Because it can happen to anyone, the victim is on average NN. The murder itself receives limited attention, in general and especially over time. Sometimes a murder sticks out and serves as of a wakeup call for society or, more sensationally, the murderer disappears and the search becomes a major news item, or it is a complex or a multiple-victim domestic murder case. In such cases an article certainly can be justified. I will check if any of that appears to be the case here. gidonb (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the article with a focus on notable impacts, not sensationalism. Beccaynr (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for all your hard and excellent work. BostonMensa (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you said. When I was a kid, the Murder of Kitty Genovese was still a popular topic of conversation even though she died when I was five months old. She died at her home maybe ten or twelve miles from where I lived, in a very safe neighborhood where we often went. Many of her neighbors were witnesses yet no one called the police and from what I remember, at least initially, no one wanted to talk to the police. By the time I was maybe ten, there had been TV movies amd I suspect books about her death. I do know her death was constantly in the news. Her death basically terrified me. The main lesson I learned was things like being aware of my surroundings.

the reason I am bringing this up was initially, I was not going to continue with the article because I realized she was not notable as a social worker But as others have mentioned, her death, through her sister especially, has a tremendous legacy. Too many people don’t like to discuss things like domestic violence for many reasons but if you want it to end, you must discuss it. I really don’t care if you keep the title as is or if, like Kitty Genovese, you change it to murder of …. But I do care that it stays. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. BostonMensa (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Based on my research, I think the balance of the sources favor refocusing and retitling the article Michal Sela Forum, because the organization appears to have the most WP:SUSTAINED coverage. The limited information that appears to be available about Sela personally and about her murder can be incorporated into a Background or History section in a refocused article. In general, WP:MURDEROF articles may focus on sensationalized and gruesome content that can be problematic per WP:NOTNEWS and possibly WP:BDP, and given the coverage available here, this seems to be a significant risk due to the tabloid-style coverage of the early developments in the case and court proceedings. I also considered writing an article about the NGO, but doing this during this AfD may create a WP:FAIT situation. Userfication is another option if there are concerns about WP:NGO notability - I continue to find various announcements of activities that suggest if notability of the organization is not fully supported at this time, it likely will be in the near future. Beccaynr (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an update, ~~after I found and added significant coverage from a 2022 book to the article,~~ I think WP:NGO notability is supported for the Michal Sela Forum, and a separate article could be created, because the amount of content about the Forum seems WP:UNDUE for a BLP (or event) article, and it seems more helpful for readers looking for information about the organization. For this article, there appears to be limited reliable biographical information available about Sela, but she has some WP:BASIC notability due the high-profile murder trial, public advocacy by her family, public education campaigns, and the work of the Forum that followed her death, so I think keep is a reasonable outcome for this article, even with a substantial amount of content moved to a separate article about the Forum. Beccaynr (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC) - update comment after removal of predatory publisher source Beccaynr (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her death led to a change of The Guardianship Law, so she has a lasting impact on society. Then the forum was created, which adds to the impact. In the context there being three things about her, death, law, focus, that's enough for me. I'm adopting WP:COAL so won't be monitoring this page. CT55555 (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of these exceptions, mentioned in my comment above, where a single murder of an NN person created such waves that keep is easily justified. Kudos to the creators and contributors for adding an important article to Enwiki! My modest help: I added the name in Hebrew, connected the article to the excellent article in Hebrew that has additional sources, and moved some stuff around. My recommendations: rename to Muder of Michal Sela, do NOT move to Michal Sela Forum that covers only some of the legacy. Translate at the very least the section on the murder itself from Hewiki. Make the subsection on Michal Sela Forum a bit less wordy. I can make all or some of these changes after the article is kept, just as I just did here. Whatever rolls out. gidonb (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move, based on the discussion above, to a "Death of" article. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with consideration of the direction of this discussion, I have started Draft:Michal Sela Forum. I think the question of whether the article being discussed here is kept with its current name or moved to a Murder of or Death of title can be an editorial decision determined by later consensus. This may be one of the first articles that contends with the notability of someone who has been 'recreated' by artificial intelligence for a public education campaign [22] after their death. Beccaynr (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not wait for the conclusion of this discussion first? Recent opinions were simple keeps and/or requests to move by death of. gidonb (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few reasons - the discussion is trending towards either the current title or a Murder of or Death of article, with a consensus at least developing about the notability of this article. From my view, the establishment of the notable Michal Sela Forum is part of the support for this article, even if the MSF has its own article. Your comment above about a need to Make the subsection on Michal Sela Forum a bit less wordy also encouraged me to start drafting, because I think there is more to add about the organization from the sources. I have also conducted a lot of research while developing my perspective on this article, and drafting tends to be easier when the work is fresh in my mind. Beccaynr (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The description of the Forum is wordy, for example, in the quote from Wired. It's possible to say the same with fewer words and finish stronger. I don't think that we should spread this content over multiple articles right now. The fact that we know more should not always lead to more text or articles. Always ask yourself if something is missing, rather than if you know something else. gidonb (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From my view, The Michal Sela Forum is a notable organization, and it seems to be WP:UNDUE, a WP:COATRACK, and potentially a disservice to readers and editors to continue developing information about MSF in an article about Sela, her murder, and various impacts independent from the organization (i.e. the reasons to oppose moving this article to the title Michal Sela Forum). I write based on the sources, not based on what I think is missing (other than generally as a member of Women in Red), and I think both articles can stand on their own and support each other, and it improves the encyclopedia to have both. Beccaynr (talk) 14:58, 24 November 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 14:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptograph (organisation)[edit]

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

Can't find sources about the company, only about auctions that occurred on the platform. Current sources are about auctions that occurred on the platform. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As mentioned, coverage in the sources listed is about the auction itself not the company. Coverage is routine per WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches for additional sources also only showed up sources with routine coverage. Therefore, this article doesn't pass WP:GNG. ProofRobust 23:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic fails WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of The X-Files characters. ✗plicit 14:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Bond[edit]

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

Minor character from X-Files who should probably be redirected to List of The X-Files characters as there is nothing in the article, or my BEFORe, that suggest he merits a stand-alone article. No reception section, only 'character creation' goes beyond plot summary, and that's sourced to DVD audio commentary... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this a relevant source? Daranios (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios I am afraid not, all I see there is some plot summary, zero analysis of the character (unless you were to treat "full of good intentions and talent, not very bright and usually quite naive" as analysis; in which case we have to deal with the failure of WP:SIGCOV anyway). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of The X-Files characters. The character appears in some secondary sources, like the one discussed above or The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946-Present, p. 807, and others, so it should be included somewhere on Wikipedia. I did not see enough coverage for a full article so far, however. A redirect, on the other hand, would not suffice, as the character is not yet included in the List of The X-Files characters. He is briefly discussed at The Lone Gunmen (TV series), but that's not an ideal target as the character appears both in that series as well as in The X-Files. Daranios (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of The X-Files characters. This is a verifiable character with some sources covering it and the list is a valid WP:ATD. Archrogue (talk) 01:50, 23 November 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. Evidence of WP:SIGCOV has been provided, but I will note that if the coverage is about a slightly different topic than the article as written, reframing is likely in order. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Krycek[edit]

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

Minor X-Files character, the reception seception section is unreferenced and de facto fake (it's more plot summary). My BEFORE failed to find any sources that discuss in him in a way that meets WP:SIGCOV. Prod was declined with a request for AfD, so here we go. At best I think we can redirect it to List of The X-Files characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources I could find were passing mentions that do not meet WP:SIGCOV, or plot summaries that fail WP:NOTPLOT. Jontesta (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The X-Files characters#Alex Krycek. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see: Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet: New Essays, p. 139-143 talks a lot about the character, including analysis and impact! Daranios (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios With Z-library offline, I am having trouble verifying the SIGCOV, although the snippets do look promising. Do you have access to all pages? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: found the book at IA: The analysis concerns not so much the canon Krycek but one that appears in "Torchi's 197 Ghosts, a 96,000-word X-file [fan-fiction] novel that pais Fox Mulder with Alex Krycek". Deborah Kaplan, chapter's author, has the following to say about canon Krycek: "Krycek only occasionally appears in X-Files canon... Krycek is a minimally drawn secondary character". There is some analysis, but of fan-fiction/non-canon Krycek. I am concerned that this is a decent source to add a note about his portrayal in fan-fiction, but not necessarily for estabilishing notability of the main character. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Interestingly, the character appears in a number of secondary sources dealing with fan fiction. It's those sources which decide if its portrayal in fan fiction is worth analyzing, not us, so both parts and their interaction in my view contribute to that source's significance and therefore the requirements of WP:WHYN. (Or, if you will, the fan fiction Krycek and more specifically the Krycek from Ghosts are subtopics of the X-Files Krycek which would be included in our article here according to WP:OVERLAP.) There is a bit more characterization of the canon Krycek there in those pages I can see: He's a villain, "a complicated villain with unclear motivations", "a multivoiced character", "a double-crossing double or triple agent, wickedly clever", a murdering opponent who also helps and does not want to harm the main characters. And goes on to analyze that the canon version has led to "a common fan interpretation of Krycek as despicable", while at the same time, despite its "unsavory aspects" it allows without contradictions for a comparatively sympathetic depiction in Ghosts, which in turn has "taken such a strong hold". Taking everything together I think a reasonable paragraph of analysis could be written to balance the plot summary (and we already have the conceptual history bit). That's enough for me. Daranios (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the one above there is a good half-page section at The X-Files FAQ with plot summary and commentary, surely not a passing mention (+ more throughout the book). There is also shorter non-plot commentary in many different sources, like [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. So it should be easily possible to improve what we have to a non-stubby article that fullfills the requirements of both WP:WHYN and WP:ALLPLOT. No reason for deletion. Daranios (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the FAQ, I'd call it borderline. The last paragrah, two sentences long, is an analysis, the rest is plot summary. The other shorter mentions seem very short and not SIGCOV, some of them are as short as just passing descriptions of Krycek as "Moulder's nemesis" etc. I'd say the notability of Krycek, if those are the sources we have, hinges on the first source. Would be good to get access to entire pages and verify the extent of analysis there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Calling a character memorable or notable is something of a tautology, but the significant coverage of a recurring character is quantifiable. The article needs improvement, but that's not the purpose of AfD. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 23 November 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 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2026 ICC Men's T20 World Cup[edit]

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

Tournament has no coverage other than that it will occur, so currently fails GNG. There is a prior instance of this tournament in 2024, so case of WP:TOOSOON and no 3rd party sources on page. Page should be redirected to ICC Men's T20 World Cup until sigcov exists. Page is currently undergoing a revert war over doing this. Spike 'em (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - restore the redirect ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Case of WP:TOOSOON.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ICC Men's T20 World Cup as recommended above on the grounds of WP:TOOSOON. Also, the redirect should be protected to stop the restoration attempts. BcJvs | talk UTC 11:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sri Lanka and India. Skynxnex (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: You can see this category which has the list of all years ICC Men's T20 World Cup which means every years' ICC Men's T20 World Cup are notable, but this ICC Men's T20 World Cup has been made long time before the event organized, so it will have to be draftify. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ 18:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect to ICC Men's T20 World Cup as per norm. ProofRobust 23:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ICC Men's T20 World Cup Restoring the redirect seems like the sensible solution here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:15, 19 November 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!} 20:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Sood[edit]

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

Mayors of a small cities are not notable to have an independent article. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Haryana and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:36, 11 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!} 09:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. In rare cases (see Jason West), a small town mayor can be notable, but there has to be significant and more than merely routine coverage outside of the local media. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 23 November 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. ✗plicit 23:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Kant Sharma[edit]

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

Mayors of a small cities are not notable to have an independent article. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Haryana and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:51, 12 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!} 09:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. In rare cases (see Jason West), a small town mayor can be notable, but there has to be significant and more than merely routine coverage outside of the local media. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 23 November 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 Sprinklr. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ragy Thomas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renomination after the author of the page was blocked for sockpuppetry (as I was suspecting). Seems to fail WP:ANYBIO. 多少战场龙 (talk) 08:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Loads and loads of interviews discovered on a Google cse search and before on the web, that confirm he exists per WP:V but no secondary sourcing. Lots of lots of interviews. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 08:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Fails WP:SIGCOV but this subject is notable and this article is supported with generally reliable sources NYT and Forbes. Lilsusanalex (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Sock strike Girth Summit _(blether) 18:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Kerala, and New Jersey. Skynxnex (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and~~ Redirect to Sprinklr - I have reconsidered my !vote from the previous AfD in light of WP:NBUSINESSPERSON and the limited amount of independent and reliable content currently available to support WP:BASIC, including based on another search for sources. Beccaynr (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)- !vote updated after further review of sources, including sources noted in the previous AfD discussion; the creation of a redirect seems reasonable because of biographical information in the Sprinklr article, but I also have no objection to first deleting this article before the redirect is created. Beccaynr (talk) 19:12, 19 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!} 09:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reviewed the sources, I don't think there's a case for GNG here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sprinklr Basic information about this person in relation to the founding of the company is already at the target article. Joyous! | Talk 18:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC; sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP per review of available source. Not a fan of redirecting BLP names to corporate entities -- the target article may be redirected itself, and the name just hangs there. Therefore, I prefer deletion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 11:03, 19 November 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!} 09:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aestiva Software[edit]

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

Non-notable software company. Created over a decade ago by a WP:SPA employee of the company, orphaned since then. One hit on Google News, a passing mention. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 09:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 09:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A longstanding WP:SPA article describing a company's business automation software proposition as it was in 2010. Searches are not finding evidence of attained notability for the company, nor substantial coverage beyond listings and blog comments on their products (HTML/OS, Aestiva Array, Webigami, etc.). AllyD (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only coverage I find is on a blog-type site called BuiltIn, nothing notable here folks. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have to agree, outdated, nothing notable. Equine-man (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing I can find that meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:21, 21 November 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!} 09:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Twemlow[edit]

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

This is the biography of a background actor and composer of library music for film and television. While his creative works are numerous, I can't see anything that would fulfill the notability criteria at WP:CREATIVE or WP:ANYBIO. At the bottom of the article there are some (WaybackMachine-archived) external links: one written by a self-confessed "great friend" of his, and two about an unmade film of a novel which he wrote, but I can't find anything significant online beyond passing mentions. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - basic searches reveal no new significant coverage. The sources in fact tell us the opposite: his only possibly notable work was declined twice to be made into a film. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 23 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists[edit]

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

I've declined a speedy deletion request on this, as given the number of editors who've worked on it without raising concerns, I don't feel deletion would be wholly uncontroversial. However, this is clearly not appropriate for Wikipedia and is never going to be—even if sources could be found, the article would need to be completely gutted to the extent that it would be easier to rewrite from scratch. ‑ Iridescent 06:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Environment. ‑ Iridescent 06:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as CSD tagger; the article has never cited any independent, in-depth coverage (or anything other than the organization's website) since its creation by a COI editor in 2009, and reads like it belongs on said website not on an encyclopedia. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This seems to be copied from a variety of sources, see Earwig. VickKiang (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: Previous versions might not be eligible for G12 but IMO at minimum this needs revdelling. Even the oldest version has many copyvios apparently. VickKiang (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing it. The page Earwig is flagging is years newer; this appears to be someone copying Wikipedia, not the other way around. Unless a page is brand new, Earwig is a useless tool. ‑ Iridescent 15:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: Good catch, apologies for my mistake. However, the latest version links to this booklet which is from its own website. Could the association also be copying from Wikipedia as well? Otherwise, it is a copyvio in the unlikely case this is kept it might need to be revdeled.

Otherwise, this is a obviously promotional article with a clear WP:COI and my search only found trivial mentions or routine announcements, 1, 2, so with CSD out of the way I am at delete. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also P.S. I don't think this Springer article and their own association page would copy from Wikipedia, but it would be quite dishonest for this association if they copy our article... but with or without copyvios this is a non-notable WP:TNT deserving mess IMO. Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given who the creator is it's entirely plausible that they wrote the text and posted it to both Wikipedia and their own website, for instance. This doesn't look like an unambiguous enough copyvio for G12, although it might be worth sending to WP:CP should this AfD (by some miracle) be closed as keep. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tried to find any independent sources, nothing really notable found. Looked at history of article and COI editor, would agree it doesn’t belong here. Equine-man (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and what I see on the Internet - an article could be created on the generic topic, but not the association. I found few sources about the group but many on the topic. I would not oppose a move and re-write. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 23 November 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 12:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Eiden[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG.

His biggest acting role is in a sitcom that was cancelled for low ratings after one season. I find news articles that mention him as an audiobook narrator, but mostly just as the line "narrated by Andrew Eiden". asilvering (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, and California. asilvering (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This biographical article fails WP:NACTOR, which states that Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. The biggest acting role is in a quickly cancelled sitcom (Complete Savages). It debatably counts towards one role per WP:NACTOR, Andrew is one of the starring roles, the show is also apparently notable with multiple reviews for it being bad. However, the multiple requirement of NACTOR is failed. I do not see any more indication of other criteria of WP:NBIO, WP:BASIC, or WP:GNG being met. Narrating in a book and being shortlisted doesn't count towards GNG or BASIC a non-trivial/significant source. My WP:BEFORE search also only found trivial mentions, 1, 2, 3. VickKiang (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His "extended family" has more sources for GNG than he does. Audiobook narration is not notable unless he wins an award of some sort. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: While I think there may be difficulty in making out WP:NACTOR, as the subject only appears to have one relevant significant role, there may be an argument to be made for WP:GNG. I had a few newspaper articles clipped (here, here and here), and I came across this at Google Books. There are further articles at newspapers.com too, which may also be of assistance. It's not brilliant, but it's a start. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dflaw4: I am thoroughly unconvinced that those are WP:SIGCOV. Your first two sources mention Andrew Eiden three times while listing the cast and trivially discuss his role. The third one is further routine, mainly quotes and is interview-like. Per WP:GNG, Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, 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. Additionally, the Book ref literally mentions Eden in two sentences, first instance discussing their role in a single sentence, then quoting Eiden in another sentence. These are inadequate to pass WP:GNG, but given we almost always disagree let's respectfully disagree here too. Oaktree b, asilvering, do you think those sources are adequate and would result in you changing your vote? VickKiang (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This seems like a delete so far, but since possible sources were brought forward on the last day, I'm giving it a relist to allow more reaction time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:31, 11 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, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with the analysis of VickKiang here. An independent search for sources from me has resulted in me being unable to find anything useable, and the sources provided above are in my view not notability establishing. —Sirdog (talk) 07:11, 18 November 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 05:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMTS Institute[edit]

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

~~Permotions page doesn't meet WP:GNG Wikiindiawikiindia (talk)~~ 04:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Wikiindiawikiindia (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I Believe that this article should not be removed because IMTS Institute is having reliable news coverage. CKNetha (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much promotion. [28] - a website about us has less promotions than this piece of "news". --多少战场龙 (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: calling for a procedural renomination(conditional) as the article nominator is turned out to be a sock. RPSkokie (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Found many news from reliable sources in a google search. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can editors advocating "Keep" share some of these reliable sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm finding plenty of typically reliable sources mentioning this institute, sure, but I cannot find a single source that is providing independent significant coverage. Basically all of them are simply promoting the college unambiguously in some capacity. A lot of the articles I'm finding are following basically the same format as [29], which just seems like a press release going over the school's history and/or accomplishments, or they have clear indicators of being press releases (e.g BRAND POST, BRAND CONNECT, IMPACT FEATURE, If you have any objection to this press release content) Other examples of sources I found that appear promotional include: [30][31][32][33][34]. The Hindustan Times one appears to be down for me right now, but it clearly says press release in the citation and in the URL it says brand-post. Because most all sources I'm finding are probably sponsored in some capacity by the institute, rather than genuine coverage by reliable sources, I think deletion is appropriate. —Sirdog (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be promotional, and most of the media sources in the references appear to be press release or paid promotional content. That appears to be the case with most or all of the coverage of the institute. WP:NBUY is relevant here. Chagropango (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: I Believe that the page should not be deleted because it also having more organically generated news coverage and same has been updated in the page. CKNetha (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CKNetha, you can comment but you can only "vote" once so I have struck your duplicate vote to Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) in India need to be recognised by the University Grants Commission (UGC). This institute seems to be a repetition of the case of Indian Institute of Planning and Management and its founder Arindam Chaudhuri. Article on WP will be used to scam and fraud innocent Indians as it was done in the case of aforementioned institute. Once the institute gets UGC recognition, it can be an article. As of now, it fails to qualify as an HEI in India. User4edits (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Manuel da Silva Santos[edit]

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

BLP of a businessman who is also a university lecturer. Definitely not a pass for WP:PROF, and overall lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. The current article is based on affiliated sources and routine corporate announcements, and I found nothing else better, just promotional pieces. Apparently not notable. Mccapra (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Portugal. Mccapra (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mccapra, Thank you for your feedback. We would really appreciate your advice on how to keep the page live and not have it deleted. We have a full list of all the links of articles about Carlos Santos available on the internet. Would it help if we shared these with you/Wikipedia? We have never done this before so we do apologise if this is not the correct route.

Kind regards,

EAM EAMINVPF22 (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is ‘we’? Mccapra (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colleague of Carlos Santos. EAMINVPF22 (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please share the three strongest sources you have from reliable independent sources (not links to organisations the subject is associated with, not interviews with him, and not his own pr republished as churnalism. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://nykdaily.com/2022/06/the-vision-and-culture-of-carlos-santos-ethos-asset-management/

https://britaindaily.co.uk/2022/06/23/carlos-santos-president-of-ethos-asset-management-inc-entrepreneur-spotlight/

https://www.laprogressive.com/sponsored/ethos-asset-management EAMINVPF22 (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's two spam sites and a piece of sponsored content, so it supports my case for deletion very well thank you. Mccapra (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming the spam sites. Is there a way I can verify sites when they write articles about Carlos Santos? 2A00:23C4:6889:3D01:9909:6064:F3AF:B07C (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming the spam sites. Is there a way I can verify sites when they write articles about Carlos Santos? EAMINVPF22 (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May I send you other sources from reliable independent sources? Just trying to follow the correct rules and understand the process to avoid the page being deleted. Thank you. EAMINVPF22 (talk) 09:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an independent source from yesterday, Ethos Asset Management is listed under the Key Players list:

https://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/project-investment-and-asset-management-services-market-trend-2022-size-share-global-technological-innovation-future-scope-and-demand-forecast-by-2028 EAMINVPF22 (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject ban the editor, and create protect for want of reliable sources. PRWire, business newsletters, sponsored content, and the like are not reliable, nor independent. Even high school students know that. Nothing exists in the Times database. Non-tenured professors almost always fail our standards for professors. An offer to try to find better sources, after posting this mess of spam, is not tenable in 2002, because everybody knows we are not a free web host service. The arguments to keep are neither reasonable nor serious. I can not stress strongly enough that playing innocent that we do not have standards, or that a conflict of interest as a volunteer for a charity, or that they are somehow unknown after 21 years, is a reason alone to delete. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 23 November 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. While the consensus is to keep this article the nominator does bring up the fact that this article is unsourced and could use some attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terzake[edit]

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

No references or sources, and does not prove any notability. Zekerocks11 (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Belgium. Zekerocks11 (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A longtime news program that has aired in Belgium since 1994. Of course it needs sources, but notability ought not be an issue. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Honest question, did you do a WP:BEFORE check at all, @Zekerocks11:? Because a quick Google search brings up plenty of sources. Remember, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, just because an article isn't in great shape doesn't mean the subject isn't notable. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I will give an honest reply, I did not even see that page when I did my scan over. I apologize in advance and I'll give it a look over. Zekerocks11 (talk) 22:51, 18 November 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 Tanza#Education. ✗plicit 03:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of the Holy Rosary School[edit]

(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. Hits on Google News seem to refer to a different school of the same name —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Tanza#Education per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tanza#Education. Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. I not that this small school has not been covered extensively. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 23 November 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 03:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Good Shepherd School[edit]

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

An article that reads like a directory. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Hits on Google News seem to refer to a different school of the same name. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:10, 20 November 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 Tanza#Education. ✗plicit 03:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Tree International School[edit]

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

An unsourced article from 2011. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories and this won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Tanza#Education per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tanza#Education. Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:51, 23 November 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 Tanza#Education. ✗plicit 03:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De Roman Montessori School[edit]

(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) 02:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Tanza#Education per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tanza#Education. Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:51, 23 November 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 03:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Academe of St. Jude Thaddeus[edit]

(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) 02:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:28, 19 November 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 Silang, Cavite#Education. ✗plicit 03:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infant Jesus Academy of Silang[edit]

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

2008 uncited article that fails WP:NSCHOOL. No hits on Google News and Google Books supporting notability. Google Hits are mostly business and map listings.

WP:ATD is to redirect to Silang,_Cavite#Education Lenticel ^(talk) 02:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Silang, Cavite#Education as an WP:ATD. On principle, this is the most optimal solution; however, I do think Education sections need to be rewritten as prose instead of just having a list. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Silang, Cavite#Education: per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Silang, Cavite#Education. Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 06:35, 19 November 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 Anglican Diocese of Melbourne. If you would prefer a different redirect target, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SHAC Community[edit]

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

Fails WP:NRELORG. UtherSRG (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. UtherSRG (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anglican Diocese of Melbourne where it could be mentioned with a sentence or two. Jahaza (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the SHAC Community page is not a good idea due to the major significance the church organisation has for Anglicans in the Melbourne region. Deleting the Wikipedia site would be a major mistake due to the large size of the church. Please leave it. 101.181.73.28 (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, 101.181.73.28. I'd like to be able to keep the article, but we need to be able to show that it's notable, which means we need reliable third-party sources of information about it. If you can point us to those, such as newspaper articles, book citations, or similar, that would help. Jahaza (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I see nothing notable in this, except possibly size for which we have no indication in the article. Otherwise this is a typcial lcoal church article, of a kind we routinely delete. That the article is about three congregations being run together does not alter that. I note there is also a rename proposal, but there must be dozens of churches dedicated St Hilary around the world. If renamed, it would need a place. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kew, Victoria - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why to there and not as Jahaza suggests above? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's more specific and easier to justify a lengthier entry, since the group, or church, is of more significance in the place of its parish than in the diocese, but I've got no problem with Jahaza's suggestion if the alternative is deletion. Ingratis (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting just to solicit opinions on two possible redirects. Please don't make a third suggestion!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We aren't here to advertise for your church services; this is nothing more than a directory listing. Oaktree b (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find BLAR acceptable. While there is nothing stopping anyone from putting some information about SHAC in either of the two redirect destinations, it seems to me that a sentence or two would be too much in the Kew, Victoria article (an article that barely mentions anything with regards to religious organizations). If we follow the "What links here".... SHAC is in List of Anglican churches in Melbourne, which is a See Also entry in the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne article. So it seems to me that this is a better target for the redirect. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd see this as a good opportunity to fill a gap in the article on Kew, Victoria, but whatever. Ingratis (talk) 06:26, 18 November 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 01:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dalhousie Corporate Residency MBA[edit]

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

This article has very little sourcing and none that actually discusses the university in length (outside the self-referencing source). Seems to be the case doing a search on Google Books, and web. This article seemingly fails WP:ORG, and WP:NFACULTY (note the faculty that administers this program doesn't even have its own article). Leventio (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Leventio (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 01:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTGUIDE. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nominator points out,the sourcing is sorely lacking. No indication of passing WP:ORG. Per WP:NFACULTY, "In general these organizations [faculties] are not notable (see WP:ORG) and should not be split off from the main institution article in the absence of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources." Samsmachado (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 24 November 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. ✗plicit 01:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts family (acting)[edit]

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

No sources for 12 years, no reason for such an article that just lists a few related people. If kept, it should probably moved to a "List of" title, but I don't see how this is notable. The connections here are already listed in the infoboxes of the three articles. MB 01:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. MB 01:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fully agree with nominator's rationale. For clarity's sake, I would be opposed to a conversion to a list. —Sirdog (talk) 07:43, 18 November 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 Las Vegas Grand Prix. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas Street Circuit[edit]

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

This was initially created as a copy-paste split from Las Vegas Grand Prix which I BLARed to Las Vegas Grand Prix#Circuit. This same copy-pasted split was restored and then reverted by Onel5969, but now it has been restored again as a stub. I believe that for the time being, this circuit is not independently notable from the Grand Prix, there being a lack of sources which discuss the circuit specifically outside of the context of the Grand Prix. Also the article is very short (too short to warrant a split), and completely duplicates information from the parent article (in fact it is now much less detailed). So then I think this should be redirected to Las Vegas Grand Prix#Circuit. A7V2 (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Nevada. A7V2 (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Las Vegas Grand Prix: WP:TOOSOON for this split to be made, as there is no independent coverage at this time. We can revisit this issue when we get closer to the event and there is actually content about the circuit not based on the event. SSSB (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Las Vegas Grand Prix per SSSB. --MuZemike 12:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Every circuits should have different articles rather than events. I think the time has come to keep this page separately from the article of Las Vegas Grand Prix. I did some improvements on the circuit page now, maybe there would be some another improvements done within this page. Apeiro94 (Apeiro94) 09:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Every circuits should have different articles rather than events." - on what grounds? Your additions did not add any sources which discussed the circuit beyond the scope of the event, so the original rationale still stands. SSSB (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, for instance why does the Miami International Autodrome and Miami Grand Prix have different pages than each other? If there are different two pages for the Miami Circuit and Grand Prix, we should also have different two pages for the Las Vegas Street Circuit and Las Vegas Grand Prix.

Yes, I am aware that the page of Las Vegas Street Circuit does not contain much information now, but it is normal in these times not to have much information now. And also in my opinion, the Circuit section on the Las Vegas Grand Prix page should be directly transferred to the Las Vegas Street Circuit page, since this section is more related to the circuit information rather than the Grand Prix information. Apeiro94 (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because Miami International Autodrome contains information not relevant to the Miami Grand Prix (most significantly, the other events hosted by the circuit). Not just for the sake of it. If you want to engage in an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, so will I. Las Vegas Street Circuit is comparable to the Bern Street Circuit at this time, not the Miami International Autodrome

"...it is normal in these times not to have much information now.", that is exactly why a seperate article is unjustified now. SSSB (talk) 09:56, 20 November 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.