Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 17	October 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. Thank you MB for adding more entries to the page. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HBD (disambiguation)

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

I attempted to salvage the page by adding an entry, but it seems that, considering HBD is the primary topic and Human biodiversity is a disambiguation page (therefore a see also entry), there would only be one entry, giving no need for the page. However, I might've not searched deep enough and there may be other topics on Wikipedia abbreviated as HBD. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added more items that with this abbreviation or code. MB 16:07, 19 October 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!} 22:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rediker Software

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable enterprise. Little coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Massachusetts. PepperBeast (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable, created by an obvious COI editor. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless an editor can point out something I cannot see, the references in the page and online fall short of WP:ORGCRIT. There are a few that come close, but they are local or regional coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fairly obvious undeclared COI. Deb (talk) 18:02, 25 October 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 12:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zimkhitha Weston

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE. Has not competed at the highest level, only represented under 22 team. LibStar (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 12 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!} 22:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just too soon. It is refreshing that an actual article is attempted and not a stats report. Added note for future reference: The External links should not become a "Link Farm" and should contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy, and should not have a user generated reference such as Facebook, which belongs to the high school, so not an appropriate official link. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Karim

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

doesnt meet notability Nswix (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment once you get past the various social medial links, she's mentioned in either Pakistani or Indian sources. To be honest, they all look the same and I can't tell if they're RS or not. Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She clearly doesn't meet WP:NMMA. It looks to me like it boils down to whether or not being Pakistan's first female MMA fighter shows WP notability (assuming that is an established fact). I'm not impressed by the coverage (much is just results reporting and fight promotion) and it's not clear to me that WP:GNG is met, but perhaps other sources can be found. Papaursa (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Found some sources with more significant coverage about her life and career:

Dawn
The Print
Desiblitz
BBC - interview but adds to her over all notability.

Insight 3 (talk) 16:39, 10 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!} 22:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The subject is winner of international championships. Sources like The Times of India, Radio Pakistan and ThePrint convince me to vote for weak keep.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, there is no evidence or claim of her winning any national or international championships. Winning one bout is not the same as winning a championship. Do you have any supporting sources for your statement? Which specific sources show she meets WP:GNG? Show me good sources and I'll willingly vote to keep this article. Papaursa (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. She's garnered attention in international press, including the BBC, as Pakistan's first female MMA fighter. Overall I think there is enough of a flurry of coverage that there indicates some notability for this achievement. However, if we had an article on Mixed martial arts in Pakistan I would have suggested redirecting the article there and mentioning her achievement in one sentence rather than having a bio page. As it is, absent a merge/redirect target a weak keep is the best option.4meter4 (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassiopeia, HeinzMaster, RafaelHP, Gsfelipe94, and Sdpdude9:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the Keeps are Weak Keeps. Editors are looking for confirmation that the subject did win championships.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources given above establish the subject's notability to a fair degree. Muneebll (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified above, appears in news since 2019, plus discussed in Jennings' 2021 History of MMA.^[1] Passes the GNG.

References

^ Jennings, L. A. (2021). Mixed martial arts: a history from ancient fighting sports to the UFC. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp. 190–191. ISBN 978-1-5381-4195-3.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 18:55, 25 October 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 WFLD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monstrous Movie

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

Non-notable program. Sources are all just youtube clips from WFLD. It's not mentioned on the WFLD page, so redirect isn't useful either. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Illinois. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a whole book called Chicago TV Horror Movie Shows: From Shock Theatre to Svengoolie. Unfortunately, Monstrous Movie only gets two sentences there. I don't know how much there is to say about this topic. It wasn't a hosted horror show like Svengoolie. It was just a slot for the station to air genre movies. A brief mention in the history section of WFLD wouldn't hurt. Zagalejo (talk) 03:05, 9 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!} 21:07, 11 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!} 22:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the WFLD tv station that aired it, with a few sentences, seems the best option. Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to WFLD.4meter4 (talk) 23:47, 24 October 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 14:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Computer Solutions

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. Article only summarizes the company's activities without describing its significance or influence. I could not find more substantive coverage; has been tagged since July 2018 as potentially not notable. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Massachusetts. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial coverage in third-party sources. Most active editors to this article were undisclosed company employees. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article summarising the acquisition and product / service history of a company, supported by announcement-based and primary-sourced coverage, which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches are not finding evidence to demonstrate notability here, nor is there an obvious redirect target. AllyD (talk) 13:23, 19 October 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 Intact America. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genital Autonomy America

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. A previous redirect attempt was overturned with the claim "passes WP:NOTABILITY" but the article is almost entirely sourced to primary sources. The sole non-primary source is just about circumcision generally and doesn't mention this advocacy group at all. Aside from a few passing references in books and a couple op-eds by people affiliated with the group, I cannot find sustained coverage. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 17:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sexuality and gender. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 17:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine M. Roach (2022) is a secondary, academic reference which explicitly mentions Genital Autonomy America as a notable organization that promotes body positivity and genital integrity, and belongs to the sex-positive movement: Catherine M., Roach (2022). Good Sex: Transforming America Through the New Gender and Sexual Revolution. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. pp. 122, 259. ISBN 978-0-253-06469-1. GenoV84 (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're giving a lot of commentary there that the book doesn't have. The actual mention in the book is the single sentence "See also the organization Genital Autonomy America", which does just about nothing for notability. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 18:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary based on what the source itself states. Here's the full quote (page 122):

There are implications here for issues related to penis circumcision such as female genital cutting or mutilation (see also chapter 21) and surgeries on the genitals of babies born with intersex conditions of differences in sex development. Advocates against these procedures use umbrella terms such as genital autonomy and genital integrity. These procedures raise complex issues of consent, medical justification, parenting responsibilities, religious and cultural context, and human rights. For one such discussion of intersex issues, see the United Nations Awareness campaign Free and Equal. See also the organization Genital Autonomy America.

GenoV84 (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph, which apparently applies to "advocates" in general and not just GAA, doesn't say that GAA is an organization that promotes body positivity and genital integrity, and belongs to the sex-positive movement. The only thing it says about GAA is (to paraphrase) "If you're interested in learning more about this, there's a website in the endnote that might have more information." ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 20:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the author explicitly mentioned it in her essay as a source of further informations about the aforementioned topics. I suppose that it would be better to merge it with the main article Circumcision controversies. GenoV84 (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't pass WP:SIGCOV. The source article makes a plainly trivial mention of Genital Autonomy America in a book about sex positivity. Original research is required to extract content about the organization, thus violating significant coverage. Cadenrock1 (talk) Cadenrock1 (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Intact America for the simple reason that Genital Autonomy America actually merged with Intact America on July 1, 2021. I already carried out this merger a few days ago, I'm not sure why it has now been reverted back from a redirect to Intact America to a standalone article. There are some legitimate concerns about primary sources, so I removed a lot of irrelevant material from such sources. It may also be that GAA is not independently notable, but it doesn't have to be if it's part of the Intact America article, which is. Problem solved. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:16, 12 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!} 22:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Intact America.4meter4 (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Intact America per Nederlandse Leeuw. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet, and sock-puppetry has derailed the conversation. No prejudice against renomination by an editor in good standing. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rinshad Reera

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

~~This page doesn't meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lillyshang (talk • contribs) 11:45, October 11, 2022 (UTC)~~(sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now. Lillyshang is the original creator of the article--it's not clear to me from their editing history or the article history why they would call for the article's deletion at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked socks, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Lillyshang. Spicy (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Article Rinshad Reera doesn't meeting the basic Wikipedia notability criteria. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamadutta (talk • contribs) 11:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article on wikipedia should be "worthy of notice" or "note" —that is, "remarkable" or "significant,to be recorded. This Rinshad Reera article doesn't meet this basic notability criteria of wikipedia, so it should be go through a search for, reliable sources and if it's find lacking the article should consider for deletion. Jeenwaljeen (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Administrators should check this article's notability. (WP:GNG)Ilhamkerala (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The creator's intention is secondary, prime focus should be whether the article meets the guidelines of Wikipedia. I think the article have enough reason for deletion. It lacks notability guidelines ( WP:GNG ) of Wikipedia.Kaishak (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC) — Kaishak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

In the light of the comments made here by socks and single purpose accounts it would seem to be best for this discussion to be closed as "no consensus", with any further discussion to be nominated by an untainted editor. I haven't had a chance to look into sourcing because of all the shenanigans, but might do so if we can have this discussion among good-faith editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 17 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!} 20:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pakalomattam family

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

Just as in the AfD for Nedumpally, this is a family with only one instance of mention in a historic legend. There is no reason to believe they deserve a paper under WP:NOPAGE. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, India, and Kerala. Pbritti (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What rubbish! There are tons of hits on a google books search, though it is clear that the spelling of the name varies. What WP:BEFORE did you do? See also what links here. The article is pretty poor, but that is no reason for deletion. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the surface-level searches you've given confirm the issue at hand: this family is not suitable for its own page per WP:NOPAGE. A number of editors—including one recent SPA—have made something of a sport out of linking to this article and other former family articles with spurious or non-existent sourcing. The Google results seem hopeful at first, but deeper examination reveals two trends: 1.) trivial coverage of the same legend that, I'd argue, should be its own article or 2) trivial coverage of a disputed priestly lineage. Considering this is a section of the project I'm regularly involved in, I'm disappointed in the lack of assuming good faith. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear to me that you didn't actually take the time to look at the sources in google books beyond maybe the first few. I linked several books with sig cov below which appeared in the search links posted by Johnbod which are clearly not surface level or trivial, but in-depth significant coverage. It's difficult to assume good faith when the evidence was presented to you, and then you didn't bother to examine it properly.4meter4 (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: While I appreciate your efforts to expand the page as per WP:HEY (I think other editors will probably concur that it's there or very close), part of assuming good faith is even assuming plausible disagreement; I clearly examined the sources, considering I referred to specific examples in my initial response. For an editor with over a decade of experience, this is disappointing and disheartening behavior. Please consider brushing up on the WP:AGF policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti Sometimes criticisms need to be made. This was a poorly thought through nomination, and the evidence being presented here is substantial in what should have been readily obvious in a competent WP:BEFORE search. I hope by being stern with you, that you will be more careful in following WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article at AFD in future. Please read Wikipedia:Competence is required which addresses exactly where I am coming from in relation to our WP:AGF policy.4meter4 (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: Again, I am disappointed. Replying in a dormant thread to land a personal attack, say policy does not apply because you want think "being stern" will teach a lesson, and then accusing an editor of incompetence–because I disagreed over the utility of some sources. Please do not try reopening this, but I encourage you to keep digging for info to save this article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not heading anywhere productive, so I think its best we both move on.4meter4 (talk) 03:18, 21 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!} 20:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so all those books are wrong, are they? The fact that not everybody's descent, often going back centuries, is not completely clear hardly adds up to " a disputed priestly lineage". Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV from the google books link provided by Johnbod above where there are multiple books with in-depth significant coverage. WP:BEFORE was either not followed or followed incompetently.4meter4 (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cool your jets, 4meter4. Besides this book, I was unable to find any sources regarding this family that actually met the significant coverage standards; further connection between the priestly family and that which was handled in this article before it was cleaned of unsourced or malsourced content. Your very brief assessment of sources and appraisals of another's editor's actions as incompetent are independently lamentable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are others if you scroll and look through about the first 10 pages, such as [1] (pg. 164 in particular but the family or members of the family are discussed on many pages), [2], [3]. Further, many of the books only available in snippet view make important assertions about the family from what can be seen, and possibly contain more significant content. Given that all of the Archdeacons of India (the head of the Church of India; at least the Catholic head) came from this family for centuries ( see [4] which has sig cov on the family and gives coverage of a dissertation on the position and thus another quality source for coverage of the family), it would be impossible to discuss the topic of Christianity in India without covering the family. 4meter4 (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Granted that the article as currently written might bow too much to the hagiography and not enough to the scholarly literature, it does appear that the scholarly literature takes the notability of this family seriously. Brian (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been improved since nomination with the addition of content sourced from additional reliable book sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I have not previously seen anyone use the MOS to argue for notability. If we as a community have decided to grant inherent notability to the city councilors of six Canadian cities, that ought to be a notability guideline, and should be clarified at the applicable notability guideline, which is NPOL. However, I'm not comfortable entirely setting aside the guideline as written, even if it currently represents an end-run around the notability guidelines. This discussion is unlikely to reach a policy-based consensus when policy is self-contradictory, and so I'm closing it as no consensus, explicitly without prejudice to future nominations, though it is probably worth sorting out the status of the MOS before doing anything further. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Buxton Potts

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

WP:BLP of a city councillor, not properly sourced as the subject of sufficient media coverage to pass WP:NPOL #2. While Toronto is a large and important enough city that its city councillors are often considered notable enough, "often" is not the same thing as "always". It's not considered an "inherently" notable role where a person automatically gets to have an article as soon as you provide basic verification that she holds it, but a conditionally notable role where the inclusion test hinges on writing and sourcing some genuine substance about her work in the role: specific things she did in the job, specific effects her work had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.
The problem, however, is that Ms. Buxton Potts was appointed to council earlier this year to fill a vacancy only until the 2022 Toronto municipal election in a couple of weeks, and the council had its last official meeting of the entire term in July (just a few weeks after her appointment) and has essentially been in "caretaker" mode ever since, so RBP just hasn't had any substantive coverage of any specific accomplishments in the office.
The only WP:GNG-worthy source here is the same-day coverage of her initial appointment to the seat itself -- otherwise, all of the other footnotes here are primary or unreliable sources that are not support for notability at all, such as the city's own self-published certificate of her appointment and unreliable blogs. I wish there were more sourcing than there is, because she's my city councillor, but the sourcing just isn't there and I've tried to look for better.
She simply hasn't had the correct type or depth of coverage necessary to establish permanent notability yet. If she wins the different seat she's running for next week, then that obviously might change in the future, so obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when her political career can be sourced better than this, but she just doesn't clear the bar as things stand right now. Just being appointed to Toronto City Council is not automatically enough in and of itself, if GNG-building coverage about her work on city council is lacking. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to MOS:Canada#Municipal politics, Toronto city councillors are always considered notable just for holding office as city councillors.

It's unfortunate that theres only one or two good sources, but we have tons of articles on notable subjects/topics that are stubs. Probably a third of our articles on MPs/MPPs/MLAs are like this, with the only source being an article on the day which they took office, but again, they meet notability guidelines by virtue of holding office, not by how many sources we can find. —WildComet ^talk 18:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MPs, MPPs and MLAs never lack for the existence of sourcing, they just sometimes lack for Wikipedians actually putting in the effort to write and source much more than "So-and-so is a politician who exists". Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on whether they're all already in the article or not — so it is entirely possible for a person to pass WP:GNG even though our article about them fails to actually cite most of their potential sources.

So yes, it's true that in principle, most Toronto city councillors would pass NPOL #2 — but that's because they actually have the sourcing, not because they're handed an automatic inclusion freebie that would exempt them from having to have the sourcing. But the two or three temporary councillors who inevitably get appointed in the final few months before a municipal election to fill a late vacancy sometimes don't get the necessary volume or depth of coverage, given that council is actually in caretaker mode for a lot of that time. (And even when an appointed councillor does clear the bar, sometimes that's really just because they're a retired former councillor who already cleared the bar the first time, such as Joe Mihevc.) Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 15 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!} 20:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more than enough sourcing from .ca news sites, even in French [5], talking about her. Oaktree b (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um... That French language source is an interview about garbage collection issues in Toronto in which Ms. Potts is quoted on that topic. Being interviewed as a city council member on a highly local issue is neither independent nor significant.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews in which the subject is quoted giving soundbite on a topic are not support for notability; a politician's notability has to be supported by sources where she is the subject of the coverage, not just sources where she's speaking about some other subject. The problem remains that the only substantive coverage Robin Buxton Potts actually has is the initial one-day blip of "councillor appointed" on the day of her appointment itself, with no ongoing coverage of her work in the role because council is in caretaker mode and not really doing anything to garner coverage. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. No evidence of independent significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MOS:Canada#Municipal politics clearly says "City councillors are deemed notable just for being city councillors only in "major metropolitan cities"; in the Canadian context, present consensus has applied this only to Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal." Nominator is attempting to move the goalposts. 199.7.157.121 (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attempting to move any goalposts. Even in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, a city councillor still has to pass WP:GNG on her sourceability in order to actually get a Wikipedia article, and still is not exempted from having to be the subject of any coverage about her work on council just because the article contains nominal verification that she held the role. Plus, for added bonus, I'm the person who wrote MOS:Canada#Municipal politics in the first place, which makes me the expert in what it does and doesn't mean. It's a notable role if the article is well-referenced, but not an instant notability freebie that overrides the requirement for the article to be well-referenced. Bearcat (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MOS:Canada#Municipal politics. Djflem (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which reads (bold mine):City councillors are deemed notable just for being city councillors only in "major metropolitan cities"; in the Canadian context, present consensus has applied this only to Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. This "exemption" exists only for the main municipal governments of those six cities themselves; it does not extend to smaller municipalities within their metropolitan areas (i.e. Ottawa's status does not extend to Gatineau; Vancouver's status does not extend to Coquitlam; Toronto's status does not extend to Mississauga; and on and so forth), and it does not extend to municipalities that were separate from the metropolitan city at the time the person held office, and were amalgamated into the city later on (that is, Toronto's status does not extend to pre-megacity municipal councillors in Etobicoke or Leaside or Long Branch, and on and so forth.) For any other city besides those six, a city councillor is permitted an article only if you can make a valid claim of notability for reasons beyond simply holding a city council seat, such as having held a more notable office or being reliably sourceable as having prominence well beyond their local area. Djflem (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not in conflict with anything I've said in this discussion. Even in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, a city councillor still has to pass WP:GNG on her sourceability in order to actually get a Wikipedia article, and still is not exempted from having to be the subject of any coverage about her work on council just because the article contains nominal verification that she held the role — they don't necessarily have to show that their GNG-worthy coverage has nationalized beyond their local media market in quite the same way that a non-metropolitan councillor would have to show, but they most certainly do still have to show GNG-worthy coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"deemed" notable? deemed?

"exemption" exists? exemption?

any "other" city?

what? clearly in conflict, otherwise, what is the point of the entire paragraoh if notability is not "deemed", the person is not "exempt", or there is no difference from "other" cities?.Djflem (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Djflem (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a massive difference. A Toronto city councillor merely has to pass GNG on their sourceability, while a city councillor in Burlington or Sudbury or Thunder Bay or Kingston has to be shown to have nationalized prominence expanding significantly beyond just their own local media market. Those aren't the same thing at all: the Toronto city councillor can rely almost entirely on Toronto media, while the non-metropolitan city councillor can't rely on their own local media without showing a considerably wider range. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have not answered the question. Why did you write the paragraph declaring "deemed" notability, "exemption", and difference of cities? As written, NONE of what you are NOW claiming is included in the paragraph. NONE. What is the point of writing it if it is NOT clear, which it's not. Djflem (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
City councillors in Toronto are accepted as notable just by virtue of having GNG-worthy media coverage in their local media market; city councillors in other non-metropolitan cities are accepted as notable only if they can be shown to have nationalizing coverage demonstrating nationalized prominence far, far beyond just their own city alone. That statement clearly explains both that other cities are handled differently than Toronto, and how and why they're handled differently than Toronto — and therefore both "difference of cities" and "exemption" have been fully answered by that statement itself. And I'd be interested to know exactly what definition of "deemed" implies to you that Toronto city councillors are automatically absolved of actually having to have GNG-worthy reliable sourcing to support their articles with. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 25 October 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 23:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raymark

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

This is a company therefore WP:NCORP applies. I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability as they rely entirely on PR and company announcements. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Canada. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:26, 11 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!} 20:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also find little more than PR about this company. FalconK (talk) 20:56, 22 October 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 07:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Crawford (journalist)

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

Non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a pr platform or vanity publisher. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Journalism, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Signally fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
so what is the test? is it a level of public impact? eg how does the entry on U2 the rock band meet the criteria ? isn't that just PR and vanity, albeit professionally written by that arm of the their mercantile business? 124.190.29.138 (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So if the policy is "On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source." and Crawford is the author of innumerable articles on popular culture, in reliable sources, yet is not the subject, how does that fit in with the criteria? His impact, or notoriety, is deep within his oeuvre. Viraload (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

compare the pair: Matthew Collings Viraload (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and while we're at it should we also compare apples and oranges. WP:OTHERSTUFF. No point comparing a BAFTA winner to what? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

.. just trying to understand how it works. I am to understand that a career journalist with innumerable published works needs to have won an award to achieve the notability criteria? Viraload (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if it makes a contribution we can add a blizzard of citations to published articles , talks, exhibition essays, etc Viraload (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

anyway I vote KEEP Viraload (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

added citations where needed Viraload (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see some new sources have been added but Viraload, what Wikipedia is looking for are articles, books, journals, book reviews where Crawford, or their work, is the subject, not ones where they are the author. I'll note that many accomplished people do not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability because no reliable sources have covered their lives or careers. It can be too soon and, in time, they will be recognized and written about. But Wikipedia requires verification from secondary sources that subjects, events and things are notable. It is actually a high bar to reach unless you work in some fields, like athletics or politics, where subjects are routinely written about in newspapers and other media. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 18 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!} 20:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have received this swathe of verifications from but am not sure how to attach them :

Dark Gnosis

“Like the old prophets Ballard and Baudrillard, as well as Mark Dery and Slavoj Žižek (on a good day), Ashley Crawford practices cultural criticism as a high-low art of forensic pathology. Casting a scalpel-sharp eye on the enigmas of fleshy abjection in recent American literature, film, and art, Crawford then links this visceral weirdness to the apocalypse cultures of the recent and distant past. Along the way, Crawford convincingly argues that such epidermal eschatology is not so much a symptom of nihilism as a mutant expression of an American gnostic religion now gone feral and deranged.”

– Erik Davis, author of Nomad Codes: Adventures in Modern Esoterica

“With just the right balance of postmodern theory and pop intellectualism, Ashley Crawford explores the visions of apocalypse that were always there, in the night terrors of our New Jerusalem. Crossing the brio of his fellow Aussie Robert Hughes with an oracular style familiar from Baudrillard’s America, Crawford reveals American Christianity for the mutant thing it is: the dark side of the Enlightenment, haunted by gnostic strains and gothic tendencies. Dark Gnosis should take the place of every Gideons bible in every motel on Route 666.”

— Mark Dery, author of I Must Not Think Bad Thoughts: Drive-By Essays on American Dread, American Dreams

“Dark Gnosis takes us into the heart of America’s schizophrenic relationship with the apocalypse, the simultaneous fear and fascination with The End. Crawford’s thrilling analysis of end-time dreaming in the works of influential artists, writers and filmmakers shows how the religious imaginary remains integral to our cultural DNA.”

— Margaret Wertheim, author of The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace and Physics on the Fringe.

21C

“21•C is, flat out, the best looking and most determinedly eclectic pop-futurological publication in the world.... An editorial gestalt willing to fearlessly consider any futurological possibility whatever, to interrogate anything at all for its potential as fast feed into some possible future.”

– William Gibson, author of Neuromancer and Pattern Recognition.

“I’m a novelist, journalist, and futurist, and I like to consider myself well-informed, but I’m guaranteed to subscribe to anything Ashley Crawford sees fit to publish. He has more on the ball than any thirty average pundits.”

– Bruce Sterling, author of The Hacker Crackdown.

“Ashley Crawford is, quite simply, one of the world’s great publishing innovators. With maverick magazine concepts like World Art and 21•C, he has demonstrated the uncanny ability to identify significant cultural trends, as well as the insight necessary to find and attract writers who can describe seemingly complex phenomena in a language that is accessible to the widest possible audience. With style, wit, and an emphasis on substance over hype, Crawford’s publications consistently break new ground, discover new talent, and make sense of the ever-changing cultural landscape.”

– Douglas Rushkoff, author of Media Virus, Coercion, and The Ecstasy Club.

“World Art was different for two reasons: unlike other art magazines that presumed to speak for the world, but instead focused strictly on New York City, it was not parochial, which is to say provincial, and it never settled into a format. It never became predictable. It was always ready to try anything. I don’t think this is simply because it didn’t last forever.”

– Greil Marcus, author of Lipstick Traces, Mystery Train and Dead Elvis.

“A brilliant collection of articles that read like news bulletins from the future. Everyone on the way to the day after tomorrow should read Transit Lounge.”

– J.G. Ballard, author of Crash and The Empire of the Sun.

“Ashley Crawford is a writer’s editor, a damn-the-torpedoes visionary in an age when M.B.A.’s rule the newsroom. A true believer in the unfashionable notion that he can never go wrong over-estimating the intelligence of his readers, he made 21•Cand World Art the sold-out bibles of a fervent following of trendspotters, tastemakers, and ordinary readers starved for sharp, smart writing. Both were smart, stylish forums for incisive writing about pop culture, politics, mass media, and megatrends just over the horizon, fifteen minutes into the future. And that design! In these post-literate times, when readability is often sacrificed on the altar of tragic hipness, Crawford’s magazines struck a rare balance between readability, warp-drive design, and the swoony seductions of the coffee-table art book. No wonder I found myself savoring every issue cover to cover, to the consternation of other editors, bemoaning my broken deadlines. They have only Ashley Crawford to blame.”

– Mark Dery, author of Escape Velocity: Cyberculture at the End of the Century and The Pyrotechnic Insanitarium: American Culture on the Brink.

“Two of the best magazines ever to come out of Australia were Tension and 21•C. What they have in common is only one thing: Ashley Crawford. Not being a really big art buff I was a bit less interested in World Art, another Crawford initiative. Until I saw it. He managed to put together a team that could make contemporary art lively and interesting. I’m not quite sure what his secret is. He just has a way of tapping the zeitgeist. And he’s been doing it for 20 years. People who know magazines know Ashley Crawford. I’ve seen his publications in boardrooms, under glass in museums. There’s even an episode of The X Files that was inspired by a story in 21•C. Given the resources I’m sure he’ll do it all again.”

– McKenzie Wark, author of Virtual Geography and The Virtual Republic.

“Global is on everyone’s lips these days, but World Art and 21•C were the real thing. They offered a truly international view of cultural affairs that had punch and verve and polemic.”

– Andrew Ross, author of Strange Weather and The Chicago Gangster Theory of Life.

“In a world where fragmentation of media seems to be the prevailing mode, Ashley Crawford and the small team at World Art and 21•C turned out not one, but two thrillingly interdisciplinary magazines. Bringing together the worlds of art and technology, science and culture, is their speciality. At a time when the humanities and sciences seem ever more separated from one another, and when the ‘science wars’ are continuing to divide the academy, magazines that bridge these divides are increasingly essential. No one has done it better than Crawford and his colleagues. 21•C, especially, was the most unique and interesting magazine it has been my pleasure to write for.”

– Margaret Wertheim, author of Pythagoras Trousers and The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace: A History of Space from Dante to the Internet.

“When my own Mondo 2000 hit the skids, I thought it was all over for interesting and creative convergences of post-modern obsessions; with digital technology, science, art, culture, rebellion, theory. But thanks to Ashley Crawford, there was 21•Cand World Art – hip, intelligent, fun, expansive, everything that Wired wasn’t. I’m always hoping for more from Crawford.”

– R.U. Sirius, founder of Mondo 2000, author of How To Mutate and Take Over The World and The Real Cyberpunk Fake Book.

“21•C and World Art were, for the relatively short time they were around, simply the best magazines tapping the emerging artistic, cultural, and technological zeitgeist of the next century. I say this first and foremost as a writer who wants to address a well-informed but popular audience without squeezing myself into the narrow and short-sighted confines of most popular magazines, with their obsession with bite-size bits of information, celebrities, and new products. I say this also as a reader who wants intelligent, well-written essays, articles and interviews that are accessible and fun to read but aren’t afraid to make reference to important intellectual and scientific debates. And the things looked absolutely amazing – graphics and images that add information, but also carry on another dialogue with the future we should all be thinking and talking about. I trust Ashley Crawford and crew to push that dialogue forward in a way that will make the kind of great, general purpose technoculture magazine on emerging trends that we, readers and writers like myself, desperately need.”

– Erik Davis, author of Techgnosis.

– “21•C had many qualities that made it distinctive. Its variety and unpredictability made it difficult to identify any singular contribution to the accelerated countdown to the future that has become so rampant in the last decade of the 20th century. However its determination to cross all checkpoints was in fact the quality that made it stand out from the crowd. 21•C was less pretentious and fashion conscious than Mondo 2000 and much broader in its scope than Wired. It recognized that the contemporary world was multi-faceted and fuzzy, a poetic body sans organs that was as dependent as ever upon all areas of pre-digital cultural production. Unlike other publications attending to the trajectories of the present into the future, 21•C recognized the importance of memory as well, and did its best to tease out its traces and demonstrate their propulsive force in the casting of these trajectories. Above all else the magazine was a preparatory guide, a concentration of reconnaissance dispatches from the future: 21•C: Mode d’emploi, a user’s manual for the world to come.”

Darren Tofts, RealTime

Media Responses

World Art

“While most art mags cover the dead and the nearly dead of the art establishment, World Art plays with high-voltage wires in the rain... Young and experimental, this is the art forum to be in.”

– Wired, September 1996

“World Art is a thick, glossily produced number with MTV-like graphics and a wild sense of humor that is usually lacking in art publications.... Now we’ll see if the art world is ready for the massive changes the Net and the information highway has to offer.”

– The New York Observer, March 1994

“World Art succeeds on levels of readability and practicality where other publications simply baffle.... By asking frank questions and forgoing impenetrable artspeak, the magazine’s articles end up both intelligent and accessible.... With this magazine a gracious amount of aesthetic pleasure is reinfused into a realm rendered dreary by the pundits and polemicists. Its outlook is optimistic and presentation keen; World Art appeals to a disenchanted population that has long been told that art is not for it.”

– Wired, July 1995

“A knockout! Clearly a winner. World Art is world class. A stunning publication that constantly surprises.”

– Folio, January 1997

“This magazine has a strong feeling of currency. Excellent pictorial reproduction and design combines with canny editing to make this new mag instantaneously attractive.”

– The Melbourne Age, March 1994

21•C

“A beautifully designed magazine of culture, technology and science.”

– The Guardian, UK, May 1996

“A magazine with substance and a really great art department.... Very cool.”

The Cleveland Plain Dealer, USA, September 1997

Australia’s 21•C, edited by Ashley Crawford, was probably the best magazine of the ‘90s. 21•C, was the most unabashedly intellectual and forward-thinking journal that I have ever seen, anywhere. And it was a striking and beautifully designed product to hold in your hands. Each issue was finely crafted, I must say. To have my own writing published alongside the likes of Erik Davis, Mark Dery, Greil Marcus, Hakim Bey, Rudy Rucker, Bruce Sterling, R.U. Sirius and Kathy Acker was an honor.

– Richard Metzger, Editor, Dangerous Minds, 2011

‘21C reappears in the actual 21C’

I can’t imagine this thing appearing in any venue other than 21C. That zine was the hairiest Australian magazine in the history of the universe. And now they put the archives online, and they’re trying to pile something on top of that. That’s a genuinely scary crowd. Really, somebody could get hurt.

– Bruce Sterling, Wired, 2010

•

End of Days: Religious Imaging in Millennialist America PhD, 2016

“This is an exceptional thesis and I would like to begin by recommending it for a Vice Chancellor’s award. It is impressively detailed – the critical nuance deployed by the author demonstrates both an impressive knowledge of abstract visual art concepts and related philosophical critical theory. The author has an extraordinary command of critical thinking and combines that with a deep understanding of postmodern art and philosophy. He is also – it must be said – a wonderful writer. That is rare in someone with his intellectual reach and depth. This thesis was a pleasure to read. I have no criticisms – and I say that having read it twice. It is a flawless thesis – beautifully conceived, written and inspiring. It must be published.”

– Professor Catharine Lumby, Macquarie University

“This is an extremely well-researched, expressively written, highly engaging thesis. It takes on an ambitious topic: to survey and analyse religious imagery (especially of an apocalyptic nature) and its place in the collective, contemporary American psyche or consciousness. The work on this thesis has been very thorough. Once the key works for analysis were identified, a great deal of relevant literature, at all levels of complexity (from journalistic to scholarly) was duly consulted. The author is clearly working from a deep familiarity with certain ‘waves’ of cultural production and successive Western zeitgeists from postmodernism in the 1980s and cyberpunk in the 1990s through to steampunk in the 2000s, and beyond.”

– Associate Professor Adrian Martin, Monash University

•

Transit Lounge

“Unlike other publications of the ‘Information Age,’ 21•C, under the strong editorship of Ashley Crawford, managed to steer clear of the excesses and frequent hyperbole that has accompanied the explosive growth of the Internet and ‘Third Wave’ corporations. The articles in Transit Lounge read like mini research reports from the future, critical in tone, well-crafted, and notably have conscience, and sometimes even dissent. Transit Lounge stands apart from the wealth of by now trendy cyber-crit anthologies by drawing upon the critical voices of diverse specialists and analysts, painting a broad but detailed mosaic of 21st Century culture.”

– Alexander Burns, Amazon.com

“Transit Lounge is a collection of fifty or so of the better stories from the Australian magazine 21•C – which for those unfamiliar with it, is a wonderful publication from somewhere over the rainbow where art, fringe culture, postmodernism and technology meet the future and try to figure out what the hell is going on. It goes where Wired fears to tread, but with more thought and (in my ever-so-humble-opinion) more credibility – if only in that its focus is less on how technology can reshape society and more on how we are reshaping ourselves.”

– Astrid Atkinson, fineArt forum, vol. 12, no. 6, June 1998

•

Spray: The Work of Howard Arkley

“If ‘academic’ means impenetrable, laboriously written text, the academic, Spray is not. But it does document, logically, Arkley’s artistic and personal development… With its lush illustrations and comprehensive documentation, this edition ensures that it will remain the definitive reference on Arkley’s work.”

– Susan McCulloch-Uehlin, Australian Book Review, April, 2002

•

First Life

“...a tome of a catalogue with an essay by Ashley Crawford that rivals a

Paul Theroux travel saga.”

– Jane Dwyer, Asia ArtNews

•

Lines of Fire: Tim Storrier

“Crawford is well respected in the field of art writing and his address of the work is excellent. His dedication to the book is suggested in the last chapter, in which he tells of traveling with Storrier on an artistic mission to Turkey. Crawford’s low-ego critical style is the book’s greatest asset. Unassuming yet authoritative, he provides the reader with different angles on Storrier’s work without indulging in over conceptualising the artist’s rigorous yet subjective study of environment.”

- Jesse McDonald, Artwrite, 2005

The Art of James Davis

Crawford’s book does an admirable job of unveiling the intention and background of this independent and forceful artist. Paintings that first appeared difficult and abrasive soon become intriguing. Crawford’s clarity allows the works to open up before the reader. Each new page brings another variation, another panel and greater insight into the symbolic work and its relevance to the artist’s unique experience... The Art of James Davis is an excellent guide to his vocabulary.

- Tim Spencer, artsHub Viraload (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with all above, nothing about her for sourcing. Simply doing your job and showing proof of it by articles you've written isn't what's needed here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Primarily for the benefit of Viraload (a new and WP:SPA): As other reviewers have noted, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable . Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Certainly, Crawford is an experienced critic/author/journalist but in order to justify a page in Wikipedia it must satisfy at least one of the following: WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, WP:JOURNALIST. I am an inclusionist so I don't lightly vote to delete, but I cannot find multiple, independent, substantial, reliable sources that establish Crawford's notability, as defined. As Oaktree noted, doing your job (as a critic, author, journalist) doesn't justify an entry here. What is needed is evidence that Crawford meets the notability criteria, not that Crawford has published books and articles, rather that others have substantially about him. That list of commendations is fine but they need to have been published in accord with the definition of reliable sources, so they can be verified, and if they have, please amend the page accordingly. I do note that how you came upon such a list when you apparently don't have their source is curious and suggests WP:COI: please declare any conflict of interest, such as in fact being Crawford. A page for Australian journalist Chris Griffith also failed if it's of any solace. I could not find RSs via a Newsbank data search. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, WP:JOURNALIST. Cabrils (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1/ Thank you for the input. To be clear I did declare Conflict of Interest before I started the page. Crawford is a friend of mine. I also think he is notable. Yes, it is my first page.

2/ Regarding the list of commendations. I emailed Crawford regarding the imminent deletion, explaining there were no sources as defined above. Crawford emailed me the list of commendations included on the covers of his books, in magazines, etc . Many of which were published pre-internet. That is why I was asking for advice on how to use them. The commendations explain the notability of the subject. Viraload (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pagure

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NPRODUCT. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 20:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Websites. Skynxnex (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not ready to vote yet (but probably leaning toward delete) but the most significant source I've found is Fedora revisits the Git-forge debate which would count, I believe, as both significant and reliable in the open source software space. Less reliable but still significant would be Pagure: DIY git project hosting and a podcast episode: 69: Pagure a GitLab Alternative: Neal Gompa, and a blog post discussion Debian's possible using it Alioth moving toward pagure. I'm not sure if WP:NPRODUCT is the best criteria for open source software; it seems many people use WP:NSOFT (which is only an essay, yes). Skynxnex (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually PRODded this but I think the AFD overwrote my PROD based on the timestamps. I don't see enough here for notability, personally. Skarmory (talk • contribs)

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 Mucus. (glad I already had my lunch). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dried nasal mucus

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

We don't need this article. We have the articles on mucus and eating mucus and this article basically just copies them. This should be deleted and redirected to mucus. Marsbar8 (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the mucus article. Is WP:EWW a thing? Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's called WP:NOTCENSORED. If this is redirected somewhere, a better target is nasal mucosa, but none of the relevant articles mention the topic of this article directly, so I'm not sure if a redirect is ideal. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to mucus or nasal mucosa Earth2022 (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chali people

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

It's a language, but is in an ethnic group/people? I cannot verify any reliable source that says so. The article relies largely on peoplegroups.org which is a Christian missionary site (non-RS) and ethnologue which covers that it is a language. No significant coverage of the alleged ethnic group/people found. (t · c) buidhe 19:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have my doubts as well, nothing in either GScholar or Jstor for the "Chali people". I'm not well versed on ethnic groups of Bhutan, so I don't feel comfortable recommending a delete. Oaktree b (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are some sources i found that mention the Chali ethnic group of Bhutan^[1]^[2]^[3](Quotennial (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)) Quotennial (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all these sources. #1 looks to be another non-RS Christian missionary source. #2 mentions the language and a village called Chali, but does not mention an ethnic group. #3 briefly mentions the language but does not support the existence of an ethnic group. (t · c) buidhe 21:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hattaway, Paul (2004). Peoples of the Buddhist World: A Christian Prayer Diary. William Carey Library. ISBN 978-0-87808-361-9.
^ Phuntsho, Karma (2014-08-15). The History of Bhutan. Haus Publishing. ISBN 978-1-908323-59-0.
^ Brenzinger, Matthias (2015-07-31). Language Diversity Endangered. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. ISBN 978-3-11-090569-4.

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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nandini Sundar

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

Most of the article is based on primary sources. The person lacks notability. I couldn't find much in reliable sources. Human rights work and controversies section reads like a news report and doesn't feel encyclopedic. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets at least the first couple of criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the nomination, there are quite a few secondary sources cited in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily meets WP:PROF, with a number of widely cited papers: [6]. There's also several reviews and other coverage of a book she wrote: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The GS profile looks quite healthy (259,211,195,177,161) with a slow tail off, excluding one that does not list the subject as an author; meets my definition of WP:PROF. Also seems to have been editor of Contributions to Indian Sociology. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meet the Criterion 1 of WP:PROF the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work 1. Fifthapril (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citations good enough for WP:PROF#C1 and Infosys Prize might be significant enough for #C2. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She is the recipient of Infosys Prize so might be notable as 98% Laureates are notable. Contributor008 (talk) 19:10, 23 October 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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijet Raajput

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted after an AfD discussion a year ago, and the exact same concerns apply to this version of the article. There is no apparent notability per WP:FILMMAKER and none at all per WP:GNG. I have gone through all sources and not a single one is independent (they are all "sponsored content" or press releases). Before my weeding duplicate sources out, there were multiple copies of five different PR/sponsored sources – one of them was used six times! bonadea contributions talk 18:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. bonadea contributions talk 18:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Not notable, this article is about a film maker who has made non notable movies Contributor008 (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of notability here per WP:GNG nor WP:FILMMAKER. Moresdi (talk) 12:59, 21 October 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Beames

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotion for non notable photographer. Getting your photo published in a daily newspaper does not make you notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Herald Sun has no depth of coverage. Has a little bit of indiscriminate local puff but that's not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than photo by-lines, nothing pops up for this individual. A routine working photographer it appears. Oaktree b (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I encourage contributors to read the last AfD that went through a more detailed analysis of the sources and determined to keep the article, rather than relying on hyperbole in the nomination like "indiscriminate local puff". Duffbeerforme is a good editor but he is wrong on this one. A second AfD is a violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is enough information to meet Wikipedia standards. Deus et lex (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I too encourage contributors to read the last AfD. There they can read an analysis that found the sourcing wanting. Deus et lex in particular should read the bit where the closer wrote no consensus and not keep. And while they are at it they should also not make accusations about non existent violations. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FormalDude's source table at the last AfD. Subject passes GNG. W42 21:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Winner 42: If you read the whole discussion, the source assessment table I provided was flawed in several ways. I would probably lean delete now. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems a run of the mill photographer. I don't regard winning a Bureau of Meteorology prize as enough to be notable in WP. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so I've read the last AfD, the source table seems reliable, but then it gets into the long, wordy discussions I tend to avoid. PR sources/non-PR sources and the discussion around that point. Based on what I (didn't) find when I looked, still leaning !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, which source table looks reliable? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only sources I can see that might help satisfy WP:GNG are all from The Standard (which seemed to also be the consensus at the first AfD), and according to GNG "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Also doesn't help that The Standard is a very local publication (specific to a town of 35,000 people). The Herald Sun articles don't constitute significant coverage, the Moyne Gazette doesn't appear to be independent from The Standard, and a Facebook page as a source definitely doesn't help establish notability. OliveYouBean (talk) 11:26, 26 October 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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PushPress

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

Company article sourced to routine notices of funding and acquisitions, plus some WP:UGC review sites [12], blogs [13] and an article by the company owner [14]. No better sourcing found through WP:BEFORE. Fails WP:NCORP sourcing requirements. Spicy (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spicy (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Great BEFORE search by Spicy. I came up with the same which is nada. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:44, 20 October 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 Mirzaganj Upazila. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mirzaganj Thana

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

I declined A7 speedy deletion as the criteria doesn't apply to buildings. The article has already been sent to draft space, but the creator simply moved it back to article space again without improving it or adding any sources, so here we are. There is zero notability asserted and I don't see how this meets WP:NBUILD. Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Police, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion proposal is Confusing Ponyo said that the article is about a "building". The Bengali word "Thana" has two meaning. One is "police station" and other is "a type of administrative division". We use the word "Thana" to refer both police station and administrative division. In Bangladesh we have many type of administrative division. Upazila is a type of administrative division in Bangladesh. A Upazila can have many Thanas. And the funny thing is an area can have "Thana" (administrative division) and "Thana" (police station) in the same name. For example, we have Muradnagar Thana (refers to the administrative division) and Muradnagar Thana (refers to the police station). That's why the article states that the administrative division is a police station (and it is not false, Thana works as both). So I think it is unwise to delete the article (if the article is no hoax). So my advise is Keep. It is an administrative division in Bangladesh. We should keep it. Mehedi Abedin 19:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A "police station" in English generally refers to a building (see Police station). Given that there is no additional information or references in the article to provide any clarification, I imagine many of our readers will be equally confused. Your explanation, while appreciated, is equally confusing (at least to me). What is your policy-based reason for keeping this confusing, vague, unsourced stub? Note that I didn't nominate the article as a hoax, so pointing out that it actually exists isn't really a reason to keep the article. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It is confirmed from the article that it is about an administrative division, not police station building because the article states "All six unions of Mirzaganj Upazila." That means the Thana has six union council. That proved my point. Mehedi Abedin 19:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect, no evidence that this meets WP:NBUILD. Mehediabedin's assertion that NBUILD doesn't apply due to it being an administrative division and not an actual police building is somewhat baffling, as the coordinates provided in the article leads to what appears to be a parking lot outside a building visible from satellite view listed as "Mirzaganj Police Station" on Google Maps, which suggests that the subject is indeed a building. The article for Upazila suggests that "Thana" is also an obsolete term to refer to an administrative district, but that interpretation would mean that the subject should be the already-existing article Mirzaganj Upazila, which would mean that this should be a redirect to that article. Neither interpretation of "Thana" as suggested (Note: I do not speak Bengali) would support the article remaining in its current state. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 20:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don' think so. Because I clarified that the word "Thana" has two meaning. Now anyone can mention coordinates in the article to point the whole place in general (with its center in the police station building). And very few people know to create map data for any area in commons so they have no choice but using the exact pointed coordinates. Also it is possible that the creator of the article wanted to use coordinates to point the place, so they searched in google map the thana but got the coordinates of the police station building (because Thana has double meaning). It is possible that they couldn’t realise and accidentally used the coordinates in the article. So I think my assertion that NBUILD doesn't apply due to it being an administrative division and not an actual police building is correct in a way (if you count my possibility). Mehedi Abedin 21:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand who you are referring to as the article's creator. You created the article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinegarymass911: Mehediabedin is not the article's creator, Arabi Abrar is. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

my apologies.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mirzaganj Upazila, per Padgriffin. If there is a reasonable chance to use the title of this article as a name for the Upazila, it should redirect. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete if your article can't explain to me if you're a police station or an administrative division, we can't verify notability. We have to be able to establish what the article is about first, which is a long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mirzaganj Upazila. Looking at the article for upazila, these administrative divisions are also called (perhaps rather formerly known as) thana. If I'm understanding this here, it would make sense to redirect the former name of this place to its current name. It looks to me that the creator of this article wasn't intending to imply anything about that and simply aimed to creator an article for a non-notable police station. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mirzaganj Upazila-Administration Mirzaganj Thana was formed in 1812 and it was turned into an upazila in 1983 from Banglapedia.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:37, 19 October 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 Ring of Fire (band). Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 18:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vitalij Kuprij

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

Does not appear to meet any notability standards. Redirect to Ring of Fire (band). QuietHere (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Ukraine, and Pennsylvania. QuietHere (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I concur that the article doesn't suggest he meets WP:GNG/WP:CREATIVE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - still borderline promotional. Deb (talk) 18:00, 25 October 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 18:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Priyam Sengupta

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. PR sources etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete :Actually this is a spoof or parody wikipedia article about a guy in Kolkata who did some crowdfunding to buy a printer but mismanaged some of the funds. Post that he is at the receiving end of brutal online banters, this wikipedia page is an outcome of that mass trolling. Although most of the things written in the Priyam's wiki article are factually correct, they are bolstered. Nonetheless this person doesn't qualify for this : "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life."

https://eisamay.com/west-bengal-news/kolkata-news/priyam-sengupta-of-bloodmates-speaks-up-on-printer-controversy-and-facebook-trolling/articleshow/94881707.cms Jlost55k (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - I came across a Twitter post discussing editing this wiki-page based on on some RL conflict (?). TrangaBellam (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a linkedin post, simply listing what he has done. Nothing found for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very problematic article about an individual of at best marginal notability, largely about some trivial spat over a printer. Not what encyclopedias are for. Mccapra (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. No inherent notability Pinakpani (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G10 & Salt. The sole purpose of the article is to attack this person. I've removed the outright offensive and defamatory language but it should be deleted ASAP. Whatever has happened re the printer (what a weird sentence...), he is not notable and should not be the subject of an attack page. Jtrrs0 (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC). Forgot to add that we ought to salt this page to prevent it from being recreated by many of the registered account that have vandalised the article if/when they become extended confirmed. I can see no foreseeable reason why this person may become notable in the future and, if he does, removing the salting is not an issue. We ought, however, to act proactively and prevent it from being recreated, landing us in a similar position again soon. (Edited to add my proposal to salt the page) Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've nominated the infobox image for deletion over at Wikicommons because I've realised that it's the subject's Facebook profile picture. It is inappropriate we have considering this article is little more than an attack page. Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial mentions and routine coverage are insufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. VickKiang (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 09:51, 21 October 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah San Fernando

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Second nomination, deleted per first nomination. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - some mentions, but not anywhere near enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 08:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NPOL. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per the first time, student regent at a university is not an WP:NPOL-passing office that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia, and neither is standing as a candidate in a federal election that the subject didn't win — the notability bar for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one and losing, while a candidate must either (a) show that he had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him a Wikipedia article anyway, or (b) show a credible reason why his candidacy should be treated as a special case of significantly greater notability than everybody else's candidacies. But this demonstrates neither of those things. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 07:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that notability criteria satisfied under AUTHOR or PROF. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Arbery

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

Notability due to WP:NPROF is marginal at best (the college the subject is the president of does not seem to be particularly "major academic institution" as required by WP:NACADEMIC#6), which combined with the fact that this is ultimately a poorly-sourced BLP which may otherwise have not met WP:BASIC (I was unable to find anything more than passing mentions or articles written by the subject) makes for a case for deletion. I would appreciate if additional sources that I cannot access can be found, but as things stand there are few, if any, reasons to have this article. Java Hurricane 15:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Wyoming. Java Hurricane 15:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first source cited in the college article is headlined, 'Small Wyoming Catholic College' - hardly the stuff of greatness or, indeed, notability. One line stub with one source for its president is hardly appropriate. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of "major institution" in NACADEMIC is very poorly defined, but for a sense of Wyoming Catholic College here's an Inside Higher Ed profile. Separately, there is a potential path to notability via WP:NAUTHOR. On a very quick search, I found these reviews of Arbery's books:
1. Williamson Jr., Chilton (April 6, 2021). "Boundaries of Eden is a Southern novel filled with poetic intricacy". Catholic World Report. Retrieved 18 October 2022.
2. Pearce, Joseph (3 March 2018). "A Fictional Path to Understanding the Mystery of Suffering". The Imaginative Conservative. Retrieved 18 October 2022.
3. Taylor, Leeta (2001). "Review of Why Literature Matters". Foreword Reviews. Retrieved 18 October 2022.
4. McDonald, Henry (2001). "Why Literature Matters: Permanence and the Politics of Reputation (review)". Philosophy and Literature. pp. 373–376. doi:10.1353/phl.2001.0033.

I'll have additional time later to see if there's more. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also seeing, per his bio, that he held a named chair at Assumption University, which has a much stronger claim to being a "major institution" given that it was founded in 1904 and has a $100 million endowment. Given that WP:NPROF #5 argument, plus the NAUTHOR argument above (particularly sources #1 and #4), I'm moving to Keep. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your search. While NPROF is definitely passed now, I'd certainly like to see if there's any sigcov on the subject himself - I'm not a fan of keeping BLPs that lack sources. Java Hurricane 19:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JavaHurricane, here's some news coverage of his selection as president:

Richards, Heather (26 April 2016). "Wyoming Catholic college chooses new president". Casper Star-Tribune. pp. A3, A4. Retrieved 18 October 2022.

Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a great article, but the linked bio states he held the d'Alzon Chair of Liberal Education at Assumption University (Worcester), which might count towards WP:PROF. There are also two books Why Literature Matters (2001) and The Southern Critics (2010), two further edited books The Tragic Abyss (2003), Augustine's Confessions and Its Influence (2019) plus a couple of novels Bearings and Distances (2015) & Boundaries of Eden (2020), and looking at GS there appear to be lightly cited other co-authored books -- so might well be easier to meet WP:AUTHOR, and I see Sdkb has been before me in seeking reviews. EBSCO in the top few hits found several additional reviews: Boundaries of Eden: Eve Tushnet (2021) Modern age. 63(4):79-82. Why Literature Matters: Bruce, C. (2002). In: NEW OXFORD REVIEW. 69(6):42-45; Hollander, P.. In: MODERN AGE. 44(2):180-183. Edited volume Literature and Resistance in the South The Southern Critics: An Anthology: Urbanczyk, A.. In: MODERN AGE. 54(1/4):154-156 There might well be more further down; together with the others above I think we're demonstrating a pass of WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the case for WP:AUTHOR through multiple published reviews listed above is stronger than the case for WP:PROF through a named chair at a small university, but either is good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is clear consensus that there is notability here. There isn't clear consensus about keeping it at the present title or moving it to an article about his death, and this discussion does not preclude either option. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yurii Kerpatenko

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

Extent of notability unclear. Not to mudsling the dead, but how was Kerpatenko encyclopedically notable as a musician?

Did being the principal conductor of the Kherson Regional Philharmonic's chamber orchestra and the Mykola Kulish Music and Drama Theatre make him a notable conductor/orchestrator as per WP:MUSICBIO?

Do we have any ample coverage from before 13 October 2022? I can't seem to find anything significant. Perhaps a Ukrainian speaker could take a look at any Ukrainian sources. Mooonswimmer 14:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 2 'Folk Instruments' has no obvious date on the source, but images are tagged 2014; the archived copy dated 2015 includes Kerpatenko picture and biography. Have adjusted 'archve-date' accordingly. translated quote: "Among its best graduates of different years are O.I. Serdyuk (in the 1990s - head of the city's culture department), Yu.M. Ivanenko - director of the Kherson Regional Philharmonic, Yu.L. Kerpatenko - conductor of the Drama Theater named after M. Kulisha." For any more refs, again, 'Perhaps a Ukrainian speaker could take a look at any Ukrainian sources.' Yadsalohcin (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, the ArtKavun ref predates Kerpatenko's demise by almost 5 years. Do these sources count as 'ample' or 'significant'? Indicative, perhaps, that there was something a bit noteworthy about him... Yadsalohcin (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it will be a grave mistake to delete this entry. He may have not been an important musician before the Russian-Ukrainian war but his name is now known all over the world and his (alleged) murder has become a subject for protest and rage all over the world. The cruelty of the deed will very probably make him a symbol of the war and this has encyclopedic importance in my opinion. Rnaveh (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – What Rnaveh said. One only needs to click on the helpfully provided links above, Find sources, and find hundreds of outlets, including the New York Times, mentioning him, so notability is not an issue.Further, WP:ONEEVENT doesn't preclude articles in these circumstances. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be at least one specific reference on his career (Art Kavun), so he probably meets notability requirements for a bio. But if not, the “Murder of Yurii Kerpatenko” has certainly gained enough coverage to qualify for an article. If the former were deemed insufficient, the article can be moved as it’s justified by the latter. —Michael Z. 15:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move - I agree with Rnaveh that Kerpatenko's death is notable and deserves it's own article, although I cannot find any information on Kerpatenko prior to his death. I think a Murder of Yurii Kerpatenko article would be much more sufficient at explaining his importance. Jebiguess (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although his notability is mostly concerned with the circumstances of his death, that is very high-profile and has become symbolic. It may be that in a couple of years this could be revisited, but at the moment certainly lots of people are talking about this in the public sphere, and that makes it notable. Alternatively move to an article name about the murder. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at the very least move: this story has received enough coverage internationally that it shouldn't be deleted. I can't speak to earlier notability, but I think one can certainly argue that the circumstances of his death pass the threshold. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move-- wide breadth of international coverage in major publications such as Economist obituary clearly establish notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:SIGCOV. There is global coverage of the subject's death. The article can be expanded from some sources, like the aforementioned Economist. It is possible other sources exist in Ukrainian and Russian-language sources. TJMSmith (talk) 21:14, 23 October 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Kapila

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Mostly one-off appearances or very minor roles. The "recurring role" in Big Bang Theory is actually 3 appearances. 7 appearances as "receptionist" likely doesn't qualify as significant. Nominations at non-notable film festivals don't really get one past the notability bar. Also, let's not forget the NACTOR standard is "multiple", not just a role. Most likely still a case of WP:TOOSOON. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, India, and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as last time, minor roles, no decent sourcing. She was a girlfriend to one secondary character in the Big Bang's final season for less than 10 episodes and they didn't even stay together. Very minor character in the series. Oaktree b (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:As the user Oaktree b said Contributor008 (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Redirect: I have found this Deadline reference (here) relating to a film/show that doesn't yet appear to have been released, Whose Child. The subject also appeared in all 24 episodes of a series called Bloomers (2011–2018), where she was nominated for best supporting actress in the Indie Series Awards in 2014. However, the show (likely a web series) doesn't seem to have had much of an impact; indeed, it doesn't even have its own Wikipedia page. Her main role which would go towards WP:NACTOR is that of Simi in Life! Camera Action... I think she is close, but, based on what I have found, she just falls short of WP:NACTOR at this time, in my opinion. Perhaps once Whose Child comes out, that may push her over the line, and bring with it further and more significant coverage. A redirect to Life! Camera Action... may also be appropriate, given it is her most significant role to date. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient coverage for notability. Moresdi (talk) 10:16, 21 October 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 Reverie (video game). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbite

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

Non notable company. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Reverie (video game). Only one of the sources actually says anything about the company, but the rest have no actual content to them. Fails WP:COMPANY. I mention the redirect because the game _does_ seem notable, so it's possible anyone looking for the company would want to see that article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reverie (video game) per Annyong's rationale. Does not meet WP:GNG and fails WP:ORGCRIT. I have also noticed a banner that mentioned some sort of WP:CONFLICT on the article, probably a subtle indication of an attempt at WP:PROMOTION. Sparkl^talk 02:10, 19 October 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 Subliminal (album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 14:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changer (song)

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

Seems to be a non-notable track that does not merit standalone article as per WP:NSINGLE. There's virtually nothing in this article besides its peak position in the French charts (which was quite high) that isn't available in the album's article. - Mooonswimmer 14:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and France. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album – I don't know if it's always been this way and changed or if I was somehow operating under the wrong impression here but I thought songs/albums charting on a national chart qualified as meeting an SNG. This intreperation is wrong. Anyways, after looking at WP:NSINGLE this afternoon, I agree that there isn't that much standalone coverage of the song itself. If this is a change and I wasn't just always wrong here, it'd make sense why this was changed. You can't really say much about the song beyond it charted. This is probably the best source I was able to find that discusses the subject in-depth [15] but that is not something that would be enough for GNG. Therefore, I'd suggest redirecting this article to the relevant album. I went through a bit of spree about a year and a half ago and created about a dozen articles about French songs on singers I liked, so I'll go take another look at whether adequate sourcing for those articles exists now that I'm aware of this issue. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album. Clovermoss is spot on about the SNG being if a song charts. And if you research it, that argument has been used in countless AfD discussions. However, this appears to show the reason why SNG's only say "may" be notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Subliminal (album): If it had more than just the charting then it'd be pretty much a guarantee, but this alone is just a bit too weak. QuietHere (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Subliminal (album). Fails WP:NSONG per Clovermoss' argument. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond Charts in France. SBKSPP (talk) 07:49, 22 October 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 Subliminal (album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 14:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One Shot (Gims song)

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

Non-notable track, does not merit standalone article as per WP:NSINGLE. There's virtually nothing in this article besides its peak position in the French charts that isn't available in the album's article. - Mooonswimmer 14:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and France. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: there is barely any source to suggest notability of the single for a standalone article besides its charting, which is a weak indicator of notability on its own. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Subliminal (album): Charting is somewhat significant but not enough on its own to save this article which otherwise doesn't meet other criteria. QuietHere (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Subliminal (album). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Subliminal - lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 04:06, 25 October 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 14:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artyom Ponikarov

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

Article about semi-pro footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online English, Russian and Belarussian-language coverage is trivial, such as transfer announcements and entries in statistical databases. PROD was contested without providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Skynxnex (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - passing mention in a sports.ru blog and a basic Q&A in Sovsport but the general consensus is that such coverage is not enough to meet GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:53, 20 October 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 Subliminal (album). (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 07:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VQ2PQ

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

Non-notable track, does not merit standalone article as per WP:NSINGLE. There's virtually nothing in this article (besides the charts position) that isn't available in the album's article. - Mooonswimmer 14:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and France. Skynxnex (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Subliminal (album) per nomination. Couldn't find any additional coverage. QuietHere (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Subliminal (album). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 07:49, 22 October 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 14:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne Crampton

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

Non-notable businesswoman. Being a published author does not make you a notable one. Couldn't find any ample coverage in reliable sources. - Mooonswimmer 14:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, and Oregon. Skynxnex (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely a promotional article, I can only find books she wrote, consultant isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Significant coverages in independent reliable sources is required to demonstrate notability. Fails SIGCOV. Moresdi (talk) 22:48, 21 October 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 14:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonzo Blackwell

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

Zero reliable sources; ANYBIO applies here so delete per this rule Benedikt Gerendeg (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete twitter, youtube then the various streaming sites. Nothing for GNG we can use found in Gsearch. Oaktree b (talk) 22:12, 18 October 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 14:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gurukul Academy

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

THere are a number of schools with this name, which makes search results confusing. However I can't find even an assertion of notability for this school even from their own site nor is there any coverage to indicate otherwise. Star Mississippi 13:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Star Mississippi 13:47, 18 October 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 13:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Degereji

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

Does not appear to pass the general notability guideline or subject notability guideline for academics. All provided sources are routine coverage of exactly the same event, with nothing more substantial found in a WP:BEFORE search. The strongest claim to notability is provost of a not-so-well-known institution – the institution not being widely known is what casts doubt on NPROF being satisfied. Similarly, for his memberships, I don't believe simply being a member of, e.g., the Nigerian Institute of Management is enough by itself. This article was already draftified and moved back to mainspace (not an accepted AfC submission) with some improvement, though not enough to demonstrate notability. ^Complex/_Rational 12:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria. ^Complex/_Rational 12:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the subject did not pass general notability guidelines but it strongly met no 6 criteria for subject notability guidelines for academics with reliable sources. The subject is an office holder of the highest administrative position (rector) in a federal institution that has used closed to a half century. Since it is stated that "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions (subject notability guidelines for academics) , as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable". I agree that the article should be kept. Ibjaja055 (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think a college can be considered "major" if its website is powered by WordPress and practically every other sentence contains grammar/spelling errors... And anyway, I am not convinced it's an autonomous institution to the extent expected for "significant colleges" -- it didn't even have degree-granting programs until 2014, and those seem to be awarded through U Maiduguri anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay it seems you are not familiar with the education system of Nigeria. There are three post secondary institutions; College of Education, Polytechnic and the University. College of Education is awarding certificates that are meant for teachers, NCE , and the school has been awarding that autonomously for donkey years. The affiliation was meant to be able get degree programs which is normal for all the colleges of education in Nigeria (it is not the right of a college to aware university degree, it is just a privilege for them). Also, for you to become a provost, you must be a Chief Lecturer and a chief lecturer at the Colleges of Education is the same as professor at the University.

On the issue of Website, most schools see the website as a medium of passing information to the public and it is actually serving the purpose. What has been established here is that;

a. The school is a recognised institution by the Federal Government of Nigeria

b. The subject is a Chief Lecturer

c. The subject is the Rector of the institution.

If he is yet to merit the notability, then it should be deleted. I will like somebody to notify me of the decision because I might not check back again.

Thank you. Ibjaja055 (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Assuming the subject is [16] I am not seeing clear evidence of yet meeting WP:PROF by citations (75,45,43,40,7). It might be a case of too early career as the papers with respectable citations are from 2012–13. I agree with JoelleJay that #6 of PROF is intended to apply only to fairly major institutions; this does not seem among those, but that might be my biases showing. Generally membership of academic societies is a significantly different thing from elected membership or fellowship, though I'm not familiar with this one in particular. Witholding vote, as far from my subject area and I'm not familiar with African academia. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict Nigerians do not bank their promotion on citations on Google scholar. They do the promotion manually. Don't be surprised that a lot of professors are not on Google scholar talk less of having their citations listed. Ibjaja055 (talk) 07:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I moved the page into draftspace yesterday and it was resubmitted at AfC but I couldn't accept it because it was not notable. WP:NACADEMIC#6 states “The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.”, at this juncture, I am leaning delete. Pinging Idoghor Melody for his input. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Noting that the four sources in the article has the same headline. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. I'll have to agree with the nominator and Reading Beans, not because I was pinged, but because I share the same opinion with them. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 12:48, 19 October 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 Wikt:crank. While it is true that AfD is not for cleanup, if none of the content in an article is viable, removing it has clear basis in policy. As such this discussion does not preclude a future article on cranks or crankery if built on sources discussing the topic as a whole, but the argument to redirect to the dictionary entry has clear consensus here. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crank (person)

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

This article has several major issues:

1) Scope: The opening sentence implies that the article is about the term crank, not the people to whom the term is applied, but in fact the term only gets a very brief treatment in the "Etymology" section – the remainder of that section deals with the etymology of crackpot and kook, and the rest of the article discusses characteristics of "cranky" beliefs.

2) NPOV: The article begins by telling us that "crank is a pejorative term", and then proceeds to continually use the term as a label, with such statements as "Perhaps surprisingly, many cranks may appear quite normal".

3) Sourcing: The majority of the article is unsourced, and the sources that are present do not all provide verification. (For example, footnote 6, "An Editor Recalls Some Hopeless Papers", is a review of a particular set of mathematics papers, whose authors are not referred to as cranks, which is used as a source for the sweeping statement that "cranks tend to ignore any previous insights" etc.) The most heavily sourced section is "Crank magnetism", but half the sources in this section are blogs and dead links, and the other half don't contain the phrase "crank magnetism" (or even "crank").

There may be a notable topic here – either the term crank, or the concept of "crankery", or both – but I don't believe there is any content in the current article worth preserving. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Science, and Mathematics. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever problems the article has, deletion isn't the fix for them. Crankery and crackpottery has been written about extensively over the decades (compare pseudomathematics). Any issues with sourcing or tone can be addressed through ordinary editing. XOR'easter (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that renaming to crankery with more focus on the beliefs than the work "crank" would help make the article more encyclopedic. (t · c) buidhe 17:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. XOR'easter (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the existence of an article about "crankery", but to create such an article out of this article would, in my opinion, involve not only a rename but also a complete (and I mean complete) rewrite, at which point we're entering Ship of Theseus territory – we're saying that we should keep this article so that sometime in the future, someone can overwrite it with a completely different article. I'm also not sure what we would cover under the heading of "crankery" that isn't already covered by Pseudoscience/Pseudomathematics. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Condense heavily and merge~~ with Pseudoscience. Article definitely reeks of a bygone era with all the references to Usenet and hearty helpings of unsourced synthesis in the first section especially. Not opposed to a better future treatment of "Crankery"; this ain't it. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge with Pseudoscience, not the same thing. - Roxy the dog 07:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then Delete with TNT and soft-redirect to wikt:crank. DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC) (revised 21:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ I agree that the scope of the article is unclear. Is this about the term's etymology and historical use, or is it about people considered cranks (who can be covered at other more specific topics like Conspiracy theorist or the various articles listed in the "See also" section), or something else? I'm not sure, and in the absence of certainty in this regard, I'd say to keep it to allow it time to be improved. However, I'm not opposed to draftifying the article or merging/redirecting it somewhere else. My lack of certainty as to what the main topic of the article should be makes me uncertain as to how it ought to be improved. WP:TNT may very well be applicable here. silviaASH (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 12:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought: Soft-redirect to wikt:crank per User:AndyTheGrump, whose assessment I find reasonable. I suggest soft-redirection, instead of deletion, however, as this page has existed for some time, has no suitable hard redirect target within the English Wikipedia, and literally hundreds of incoming links. Directing readers to Wiktionary is therefore the best available solution. silviaASH (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 15:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator has given no policy-based reason for deletion (such as lack of notability), only complained about the bad shape of the article. This is not what deletion is for. Tercer (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dogs-breakfast article cobbled together to pad a dictionary definition. Much of it appears to be WP:OR, and nothing in it establishes that the topic isn't better covered in articles on actual subjects (e.g. pseudoscience') rather than one constructed around a pejorative term used to describe those promoting such subjects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience is not the same thing. Plenty of cranks work on subjects that are scientific, like cosmology or quantum mechanics, they are just hopelessly wrong and refuse to be corrected. Furthermore, there is a lot of material on crankery that wouldn't be appropriate for Wiktionary, doing a disservice to the reader. Tercer (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same thing? The shape of the Earth is a scientific subject. Flat-Earther's 'work' on the subject is pseudoscience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is certainly WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the topic sufficient to warrant notability: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Admittedly, such sources discuss crankery within certain contexts and specialities rather than provide a general overview, so I'm unsure if such coverage will satisfy WP:N's requirement to "address the topic directly and in detail". - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to wikt:crank. Policy reason: WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Examples of other soft redirects of derogatory terms: Bootlicker, Chinless wonder, Demoncrat, Dotard, Dumbass, Fatass. Lardass, Trollop. 5Q5|^✉ 10:48, 19 October 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.

Please return, it is too valuable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheZelos (talk • contribs) 17:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. The arguments to keep (or "leave") are not based in policy, and it's fairly evident that some form of canvassing or meat-puppetry is going on. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the result "delete".

>The arguments to keep (or "leave") are not based in policy,

imho the arguments "to delete" were not based in policy

>and it's fairly evident that some form of canvassing or meat-puppetry is going on.

Not true at all. The article "Allrise Capital" doesn't represent any form of canvassing/meat-puppetry. And this is real fairly evident. Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the article "Allrise Capital" was deleted? There were no promotion, no advertising, no anything else. The article can be improved. But the article about "Allrise Capital" was the same thing like for example article about the firm "Vertex United". But one article you have deleted (Allrise Capital), the other (Vertex United) stays here?! Really strange :((( Doandwin (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allrise Capital

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

There is not enough sources to show notability beside owning one stadium. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are not correct ... the firm is not only owner of the Chornomorets Stadium, because the firm is a title sponsor of the ukrainian premier league football club "Chornomorets" Odesa. Link according to the sponsorship is provided in the article.Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is that sponsorship significant or important? The league could find anyone willing to pay to sponsor them, it's not particularly significant by itself. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

>The league could find anyone willing to pay to sponsor them,

Imho it's not correct. It's not the task of the league to find a sponsor for a league team.

Furthermore imho it has nothing to do with the question "There is not enough sources to show notability beside owning one stadium."

>it's not particularly significant by itself.

I disagree, it is significant ... doesn't matter it's about for example AIG (a while ago they were shirt sponsor of "FC Manchestere United"), or it is about "Allrise Capital" who is now shirt sponsor of "FC Chornomorets Odesa". The firm (Allrise Capital) is young, and not big, but their mentioned sponsorship of FC Chornomorets Odesa deserves attention. Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mean the team. A team can find anyone willing to pay to sponsor them. How is the fact that this particular organization sponsors them significant? AIG is notable on its own without any sponsorship deals. I'm wondering if you are associated with Allrise Capital. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

>How is the fact that this particular organization sponsors them significant?

Imho it is significant enough to be mentioned in a wikipedia article. AIG is not the best example, but there are enough other examples like that, whereby sponsor firm much much smaller than AIG. For example: Main financial sponsor of FC Chornomorets Odesa is "Vertex United". The company is not big, but there was no questions like this about "Allrise Capital".

>I'm wondering if you are associated with Allrise Capital.

I have with "Allrise Capital" nothing to do.

Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you think it is significant, but you haven't said why. Is it a particularly large transaction? Did it receive a lot of press coverage? What about the sponsorship makes it significant? The mere fact that it exists does not count. There's no need to repeat my comments when you reply, they can be seen on this page. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

>I understand that you think it is significant, but you haven't said why.

"Allrise Capital" is first ever US-based firm sponsor in ukrainian professional football.

>Is it a particularly large transaction?

Cause I'm not an employee of "Allrise Capital" I have no answer how big it is.

>Did it receive a lot of press coverage?

The deal is young, the press coverage will come.

>What about the sponsorship makes it significant?

see above ... first ever US firm sponsor in ukrainian professional football

>There's no need to repeat my comments when you reply, they can be seen on this page.

This way it is easier for me to split your questions.

Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can put together your answers with my questions. It takes up a lot of space to repeat them when they are immediately above. In any event, we need the press coverage of the sponsorship and its significance first, not later. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's very nice to know that you can put together my answers with your questions, but for me it's much more readable if I split you questions like a list of points. The press coverage will come, soon or later, but it will.Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be an employee to tell me if the reporting of this sponsorship deal says is particularly large. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I think it's not about how big is the deal. It's more about whether it will be covered by media as an important/significant sponsorship deal for both sides (firm and football club).Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most items found in Gsearch are crypto blogs/PR coverage. "Company pays money for naming rights" is mundane these days, nothing terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "First US sponsor of a Ukrainian team" could be significant, if it's reported that way, but the sources do not demonstrate that and the creator concedes that there is little coverage. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Leave. Imho it's not a case about "Company pays money for naming rights". Coverage of the deal will come. I mentioned it above. All the points mentioned under "delete" are not the points to delete the article. There a lot of wiki-articles that have to be improved. The solution could be to leave the article, but provide it some templates like "the part of the article has to be improved", and so on. Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need sources or it can't be improved, that's the issue. This isn't a dumping ground to keep things until sources are found that don't yet exist. Oaktree b (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. I have presented my opinion above.Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source about sponsorship is enable, and I added it to the article. Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Leave. The company (Allrise Capital) is not a big one, but beside of sponsorship of FC Chornomorets and ownership of their stadium they are a venture capital provider, for example for "Automation Anywhere". There is source about the deal in the article. Guard123 (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NCORP. If Web-wiki-warrior can point out the references that meet WP:SRIS I will gladly change my vote!. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 Hello, you didn't provide any info or any link to the info, what is NCORP and what is WP:SRIS? Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks WP:PROMOTIONAL. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 18:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Leave. There's no problems if we talk about issues like WP:PROMOTIONAL, WP:CORP and so on. Prego-ogerp (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Leave. Instead of deleting, you can use the following templates in this case: , and/or . Doandwin (talk) 11:09, 22 October 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!} 09:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Towergate Insurance

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

Blatant advertising. Primary sources such as repackaged press releases comprise the majority of the page's sources. The FT article might be secondary and might contain some significant coverage but one source is not multiple sources The Bicycle of Dreams (talk) 09:43, 18 October 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 October 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is likely too specialist a field to get coverage in the general press. All hits are from the Insurance Journal or Insurance Business America, trade publications. Certainly unrelated as they cover anything and everything in the field (in which I've worked for 20 yrs), but we'd need coverage in the general press to satisfy GNG here. This is about their logo (and a rather brief discussion) [23] Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 18 October 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!} 09:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor United States events in 2022

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

This is a content fork of 2022 in the United States. Its creation was briefly discussed at Talk:2022 in the United States#Idea: Minor United States events in 2022 and I do understand the thinking behind it (basically to trim the very long main list), but the result in my view is an undesirable fork that contradicts the principles that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and is not news. If an event is too "minor" to include in the main list, it is not worth listing anywhere. Furthermore, any inclusion criteria for this list would require editors to do original research, since there are no sources that categorise current events into "minor" and "major" for us.

Usually when we have overlong lists we split them by sections, e.g. into 2022 in the United States (Jan–Jun) and 2022 in the United States (Jul–Dec), not by significance. We have thousands of "events in year"-type lists, so I think it would be a good idea to reach a wider consensus on whether this new subtype is desirable, before a significant precedent is set. – Joe (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Lists, and United States of America. – Joe (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging participants in previous discussions of this article: @TomCat4680, 4me689, and JohnmgKing:. – Joe (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my concerns on talk page where I cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The article's scope is rather all-encompassing, and requires editor's subjective judgement to decide what is minor. Once we begin including things like routine sports results, the floodgates have opened. I must confess to not being a fan of these events in year lists, especially when the scope is so very broad. JohnmgKing (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Minor events are far too commonplace and hard to categorize to warrant a list of them. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or add October 2022 snowstorm. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also as content fork. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with JohnmgKing that what is considered "minor" in this case is subjective. A celebrity could block another on Twitter and, as long as there's a news article about it, it could be added to the list. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the nominator and others that this a content fork and a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Sal2100 (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but after some time to potentially move some entries to other articles. I created the article originally to avoid the main 2022 in the US article and intending to avoid violating NOTNEWS, but it looks like the idea inherently fails it. I say to wait though as some events could fit into 2022 in the United States, 2022 in sports, etc. Maybe a better word to describe what I am suggesting is “ Divesting the article” as opposed to delete. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@InvadingInvader: I don't think we have any reliable way of delaying deletion after the AfD is closed. It will run seven days, but if that's not enough time, you might want to ask the deleting admin to restore the last version to your userspace. – Joe (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The giveaway is in the article's title. Wikipedia is not a collection of insignificant news. Ajf773 (talk) 09:31, 19 October 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!} 08:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ochra Speirochaiti

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

Anarchist Greek rock group, refused to sell any records. You start to see where my notability argument's going here already, right? "They followed a strictly anti-commercial tactic, never accepting promotion from mass media." Which is laudable, but sort of does for your AfD chances... Article sourced to blogs, no media coverage. No awards, no significant impact, no gold disks, no chart placements. Nothing but nihilism. Fails WP:MUSICBIO; WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Politics, and Greece. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't know if they'd want a WP page (it's not mass media, but an encyclopedia made by its users), as another user said, but I agree about the problem of notability. I also created the page, so if there's not at least one "Keep" reply (that also gives reasons for keeping the page) by midnight-Greek time, I will add "{{db-author}}" to the top of the page (requesting speedy deletion), so that it will be deleted. Michalis Vazaios (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After @Alexandermcnabb's suggestion I'll let the page run for its 7 days for a consensus to be reached, instead of deleting it myself.

@Oaktree b There's a bachelor thesis in Greek about the anti-commercial/underground/independent music scene that has the band as its main case study/example. However, I don't think that a thesis in Google Drive counts as a source making the band notable. I will try to look into the thesis's sources for more info. Michalis Vazaios (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: The bachelor's thesis is also on the references (in a website, and with citations as @Scope creep wrote) Michalis Vazaios (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a weak source; I'd give it a pass if we had more sources to use, alone it's not enough I don't think. Oaktree b (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's a page on Greek Wikipedia but it looks thin. Very little elsewhere. They don't want attention so almost by default they're not notable. It's ok, they wouldn't want a WP page anyway. JMWt (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if they're not into media coverage, it's all OR (original research) which is a no-no here. Unless someone publishes a book about them, I'm afraid there isn't much we can use for sourcing otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Michalis Vazaios - I'd let it run - it's got 7 days and I've seen very, very strange outcomes from AfD. If nothing else, intellectually, it might be more interesting than just nixing it without discussion! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of those references is a full thesis which is properly cited and likely constitutes a secondary source. It discusses them quite extensively. As a band that grew up during anti-globalisation movement in Greece in 1980's, they refused to sell their music, so handed it out, manually, all over Greece, so its likely notable. scope_creep^Talk 17:01, 18 October 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!} 08:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Independent Evangelical Lutheran Churches

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

No sources, and I cannot find enough even to establish notability. History suggests that much of what exists was original research by a member of the organization. Brian (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a good chance a copy of Melton's that I don't have access to would have info, but I don't have it and I doubt there's anything good there. Only source I can find is this subpar source: [24]. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Searched a little more and the best I could find was this record in a 2012 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches. Since that's basically a directory, I don't think it suffices to establish notability. Brian (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This appears to be (or have been) a denomination. I normally believe we should keep such articles, but the article gives the impression this was a two-man band, whose archives got lost when the leader died: this hardly suggests notability. There is a reference to "all bishops", which might however imply a significant size. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BetMotion

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

Not responding WP:NCORP as there are mainly press releases, gambling spam websites references, one interview, and other suspicious sources. Mambo Rumbo (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has multiple secondary sources. The sources used are not marked by the community as unreliable. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A.WagnerC I didn't find them reliable too. Could you list them please. 24.138.27.215 (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Caribbean. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and the IP above appears to be another of his socks. Part of a rapid-fire mass nomination of gambling companies with zero WP:BEFORE diligence. Toohool (talk) 22:18, 23 October 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!} 08:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cbet.gg

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

Remove per WP:NCORP - even not one reliable source found. Mambo Rumbo (talk) 07:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Caribbean. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The august free press article appears to be a paid promotion; no other sources to find. This article is spam. FalconK (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (despite the fact that the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet]). I couldn't find any reliable sources, and nothing about this business suggests that such sources would be likely to exist. Toohool (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenPalace.com

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

Highly suspicious subject not meeting WP:NCORP with bad non reliable sources. Mambo Rumbo (talk) 07:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep more than enough coverage of the "publicity stunts", the woman that tattooed their website on her forehead for example. We could probably cobble together enough sources for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Part of a rapid-fire mass nomination of gambling companies with zero WP:BEFORE diligence. Toohool (talk) 22:17, 23 October 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 23:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Fab 50 Character Collection

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

Few reliable sources in the article, nothing found via WP:BEFORE. No good redirect target. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:35, 4 October 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 October 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:58, 4 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!} 08:03, 11 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!} 06:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge — The information is probably worth a mention where these statues are located in the history section of Disneyland or Disney World. Not worth a standalone article. Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above reasons as stated by Adog, this article does not signify importance worthy of a standalone article.

Harobouri ^{T • C (he/him)} 17:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I wish there was more participation from some of our eagle-eye AFD participants but the consensus here is that coverage of this subject passes GNG. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Molossia

AfDs for this article:

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Excessively relies on references to molossia.org. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 06:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NGF does not cover micronations. The article does rely excessively on molossia.org, but not exclusively, and enough sources exist to pass GNG. [25] [26] [27][28] [29][30] JohnmgKing (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable micronation, has report from around the world--John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 13:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very notable micronation with lots of media coverage. Some extra work could be done to make the article rely less on molossia's own website. DominusVilicus (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's one of the most notable micronations and has a sizable presence outside of micronation circles. Kuinor (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly notable micronation, lots of coverage on the topic from around the world. Flagvisioner (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JohnmgKing—article needs to be improved but easily passes GNG. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 18:36, 24 October 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vopolo Havoka, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about the reasoning for this nom. WP:NGEO says "Legally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable." Are you say it isn't, in fact, populated? JMWt (talk) 07:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the location on Google Maps. Doesn't look populated to me! It is also not in fact legally recognized. The GNIS is merely a database of names that have appeared on maps and does not constitute legal recognition or verification of what a place really is, so further sources are necessary. Reywas92^Talk 15:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GEOLAND. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment I can barely find reference to this as a Papago/Tohono Oʼodham village. It certainly isn't there now, and apparently hasn't existed since some time in the 1970s. This is really pushing the limits for a settlement's notability. Mangoe (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pima County, Arizona - Does not meet GEOLAND as there is no evidence of legal recognition or significant coverage, however I did find one article which mentions an archaeological site. Since we don't have sourcing that could be used to support the "populated place" description or write anything about this location beyond a stub, a redirect makes the most sense. –dlthewave ☎ 18:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND, listed as a village in the Papago Reservation on a publication published by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs. Source added to article. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:41, 18 October 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wagoner, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating myself from another AfD: I'm confused about the reasoning for this nom. WP:NGEO says "Legally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable." Are you say it isn't, in fact, populated? JMWt (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just assume that I've said the same thing on all of the AfD that you have recently nom for places in Arizona? Thanks. JMWt (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GEOLAND. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is covered in "Ghost Towns and Historical Haunts in Arizona" by Thelma Heatwole. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've also just gone and expanded the article. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the brightside, it got me to create Walnut Grove Dam, which I am surprised didn't previously have an article CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on APCRP source and expansion. –dlthewave ☎ 18:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no shortage of reliable sources, a couple of which I have added including an in-depth newspaper article describing the history of the town. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:31, 18 October 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wepo Village, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. Too many articles of this kind, oh my God! ~Pog ing Juan 05:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GEOLAND. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GEOLAND due to lack of legal recognition of significant coverage. Maps show a few old foundations next to a spring, but I could not find any coverage beyond GNIS that describes this an actual village/populated place or tells us anything at all beyond the name and location. –dlthewave ☎ 18:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment This is also listed in an appendix to an Arizona Department of Health Services report in 2006 as an "American Indian community". However, it appears to be the only year in which it is mentioned, so I'm concerned about the reliability of the data. At any rate, the only other information beyond mere existence is that it was supposedly a Hopi settlement. Mangoe (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. The Arizona Place Names book refers to it as Wepo Springs, Wepo Valley, or Wepo Wash and mentioned that it is the location of certain Hopi ceremonial races, especially around the opening of the snake ceremony, which came up when I was searching on Newspapers.com for the name. Possible rename or additional clarification in the article. Reference added. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:27, 18 October 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wheatfields, Apache County, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GEOLAND. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Navajo Nation Chapters. This is a chapter of the Navajo Nation, but it makes more sense to leave it as a redirect until more can be written about it. –dlthewave ☎ 18:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND, although the Arizona Place Names book refers to it using "Wheatfields Creek" or "Wheatfields Canyon" so possibly rename, although it's possible that the name has been shortened since that 1960 book was published. There may be a Navajo chapter named after the ~~location~~ settlement, but this article is about the ~~location~~ settlement, not the chapter. The fact that there is a chapter named for the ~~location~~ settlement lends credibility to the fact that it is a ~~legitimate place name~~ named settlement. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wheatfields Creek and Wheatfields Lake are marked bodies of water on the 1:24,000 topo, and I don't doubt that there's a Wheatfields Canyon nearby. But do any of these actually meet GEOLAND, which states "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist"? Currently we have no significant coverage of the spot that would contribute to notability or even tell us what it is/was. –dlthewave ☎ 04:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was going on the basis that it was a populated settlement. Looking further, I think my comment that the accurate name might be Wheatfields Creek or Wheatfields Canyon is incorrect, that those are the names of the creek and the canyon, respectively, not the settlement. In "The Navajo country: A geographic and hydrographic reconnaissance of parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah", a USGS document printed in 1916, [31] there is mention of the water features and the settlement itself on pages 35 and 36. Quoting a portion of those pages: "Natural agriculture, chiefly limited to the raising of corn, is practiced in Wide Ruin, Pueblo Colorado, and other washes where flood irrigation is feasible. Along Simpson Creek, Wheatfields Creek, Spruce Brook, and Lakachukai Creek many Indian farms are located, and Lakachukai Navajos have developed the most successful farms observed on the reservation. Corn, wheat, alfalfa, potatoes, and melons are raised here, both with and without the aid of irrigation. The Government irrigation projects at Ganado and Wheatfields are designed to increase the acreage at points where agriculture is now carried on by intelligent Navajos. Trading posts on Defiance Plateau are located at Wide Ruin, Cross Canyon, Saw Mill, Nazlini, Sheep Dip, Crystal, and Round Rock, and a Government farmer is stationed at Wheatfields. " (bolding mine). So I read that to indicate that there is/was a settlement named Wheatfields. I fixed my earlier comment to clarify that I am referring to the populated settlement rather than simple geographic features like canyons or streams. I was confused by one of the sources I was looking at and thought the settlement itself was called Wheatfields Creek but it is apparent that is not the case because the USGS publication refers to the creek as Wheatfields Creek and the settlement as just plain Wheatfields. RecycledPixels (talk) 05:45, 19 October 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whitlock Cienega, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Whitlock Valley#Parks Lake and Whitlock Cienega. This refers to Whitlock Cienega as "an early day name for what is now known as Whitlock's Valley" and this strongly implies that Whitlock's Cienega is a literal Ciénega. From what I can tell in other sources, there was also formerly a minor stage stop here, the site of a skirmish between the US Army and the Apache, and a cattle operation, but nothing indicating an actual community here. What this appears to be is a small natural feature that got mislabeled in GNIS as a community. The feature itself is best handled in the article for the larger valley this is part of. Hog Farm _Talk 16:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hog Farm until it can be expanded into an article. –dlthewave ☎ 18:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hog Farm. It's an alternate name for Whitlock Valley. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:15, 18 October 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wickchoupai, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Topos show a few old buildings, but I could not find any reliable sourcing that establishes a legally recognized populated place, much less GNG. There's no evidence that this meets GEOLAND as asserted above. –dlthewave ☎ 18:55, 18 October 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Willow, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands now. We know next to nothing about the place other than its altitude and location. Population? History? Official status? All missing. Per GEOLAND, a GNIS entry isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete There is no basis to keep this. A look at the coordinates on Google Maps [32] shows a nearby ranch, but no basis for the mass-produced claim that this is a notable populated place. The GNIS reveals that the name was entered from the Forest Service rather than topo maps (it does not appear on older ones). A newer map does have this site labeled with an elevation benchmark near the Bar Eleven Ranch, but there is again no basis to call this a populated place, much less a notable one. Reywas92^Talk 15:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of a legally recognized populated place as required by GEOLAND, and no information beyond name and coordinates. –dlthewave ☎ 18:58, 18 October 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Spring, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maps show only a spring and corral at this location. The !vote stating that this meets GEOLAND should be disregarded, as there is no evidence of either legal recognition or significant coverage. We don't even have a reliable source that describes this as a populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 19:02, 18 October 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Springs, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Maps show a few buildings, but there are no sources that show legal recognition or significant coverage to meet GEOLAND or GNG. Suggest draftifying to give the author an opportunity to demonstrate notability. –dlthewave ☎ 19:12, 18 October 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wingfield, Coconino County, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Populated place" description fails verification; there is no reliable sourcing to demonstrate that this meets GEOLAND or GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 19:18, 18 October 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wingfield, Yavapai County, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not demonstrate either legal recognition or significant coverage as required by GEOLAND and GNG respectively. Not opposed to incubating in draft space if the author has other sources to support their assertion that this meets GEOLAND. –dlthewave ☎ 19:23, 18 October 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Springs, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure it meets GEOLAND? Are you aware that GNIS listings don't count as legal recognition and aren't reliable for "feature class" designations such as "populated place"? –dlthewave ☎ 19:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no evidence to support the assertion that this meets GEOLAND, which requires that a place be legally reconized. Maps show a spring called Wood Spring at this location; there's no evidence that this is or was a populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 19:27, 18 October 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yampai, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - The basis for the GEOLAND claim above is unclear since GNIS listings do not constitute legal recognition. Newspaper articles mention a railroad station at Yampai Pass that seems to be used as a landmark, but no in-depth coverage of the location itself. Suggest draftifying to give the author an opportunity to demostrate notability. –dlthewave ☎ 19:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete There are two Delano OWI photos which clearly show this as a rail spot and not a settlement; it was just a passing siding, which is still the case. Mangoe (talk) 01:42, 19 October 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yava, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As one15969 mentioned, meets WP:GEOLAND. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - There's no indication of what this place is or was (GNIS is unreliable for the "populated place" label) and no evidence of legal recognition to satisfy GEOLAND. The name does appear on maps next to a cluster of buildings, so I suggest that we draftify to give the author an opportunity to demonstrate notablility and write a viable article. –dlthewave ☎ 19:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legal name per WP:GEOLAND. Post office opened in 1916 and the town name was created by the first postmaster from the first four letters of the county's name. The post office closed in 1954, so it probably doesn't look like much, but additional reference and facts added to the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete I found on EBay a postcard mailed from the PO the last day it was open, which has a sticker on it announcing the discontinuation of the 4th class post office. I can't find any evidence that it was more than that. Mangoe (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be more than that. It's a "Populated, legally recognized place", referenced with a reliable, verifiable source. According to Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), that's enough, even though the nominator recommended deletion due to not meeting WP:NGF, which is the same article. RecycledPixels (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which source supports the "populated, legally recognized place" claim? Arizona place names only mentions a post office. –dlthewave ☎ 05:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Place Names (1960), page 364. It states that there was a settlement called Yava in Yavapai County, Arizona, located in a stock raising and agicultural district whose residents petitioned to get a post office there. And it mentions more about the post office and how the postmaster came up with the name from a list of submitted candidates. There's also the Index to Accompany the Map of the State of Arizona on a Scale of Eight Miles to the Inch published by the United States Geological Survey in Cooperation with the Arizona Bureau of Mines (1920) pages 5-9, which list the cities, towns, and villages of Arizona, which include Yava on page 9. [33] RecycledPixels (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yazzi, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the GNIS listing does not solely indicate a WP:GEOLAND pass, it doesn't appear on USGS topos, and searching in various locations doesn't turn up any significant coverage (just getting Yazzi as a last name). Looks like another GNIS false positive. Hog Farm _Talk 16:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google Maps shows just a ranch at this place and the original topo doesn't label it – GNIS got the name from an unknown state DOT map, but it seems to be more of part of the spread-out Cove, Arizona community rather than a notable place on its own. No basis to pass GEOLAND. Reywas92^Talk 17:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Name does not appear on topo maps, and there's no indication of legal recognition to meet GEOLAND. –dlthewave ☎ 19:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This obviously fails GEOLAND: I can find no sourcing for it (lots of last name hits but nothing else but clickbait), and the maps and aerials show wither nothing or what is pretty obviously a single establishment, not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. – Joe (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like Mangoe, I searched pretty hard for this, and it appears to be a common Navajo surname, but I searched through a full-text search of archive.org, which is usually pretty good at uncovering old, obscure geological or climate studies of a region and it turned up only family names; no locations, geographic features, and definitely not settlements. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:34, 19 October 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artesa, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google and topo show just a few buildings. Without finding any coverage of this place in GBooks or newspapers, I don't think it's notable to pass GEOLAND. Reywas92^Talk 17:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Indian village established about 1907 on the Papago Indian Reservation, trying to use Google Maps to see what it looks like today and using that as a reason to delete isn't that helpful. Additional references added. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Properly sourced articles about depopulated indigenous settlements in North America serve an important encyclopedic purpose in documenting the land's earlier inhabitants and preventing the erasure of their history. This article was badly sourced before the nomination, but is better now. Its nomination appears to be part of a bad-faith spate of nominations in retaliation for other edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep Is now decently documented, but it is annoying that it takes threat of eletion to get people off their butts to decently source these stubs. Mangoe (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. RecycledPixels (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has been expanded to show notability. –dlthewave ☎ 05:02, 19 October 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aripine, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND, reference to Arizona Place Names book (1960) added. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:47, 18 October 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aponi-vi, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Here's the Google Maps view showing a butte: On what basis was this article created to say it "is a populated place"? The topo is labeled with "Po Ni Vi (site)" at this location, with no indication of it being a community. The National Gazetteer calls it a locale. I can't find any other results in Google Books or newspapers.com. The bulk keep votes on these nominations are not based on any evidence and should be ignored by the closing admin, just as the mass-creation of Arizona place names ignored any sources beyond the erroneous GNIS. Reywas92^Talk 17:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm finding nothing on this, and I note that the oldest topo (which isn't that old) calls it "Po-Ni-Vi" and labels it a "site". Mangoe (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Topos show three "sites" along the ridge leading to Oraibi Butte but I can't find any coverage explaining what would have been there. Absent significant coverage or legal recognition, there's no basis for the claim that this meets GEOLAND or any of our notability standards. –dlthewave ☎ 05:00, 19 October 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Grove, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, named populated place per WP:GEOLAND. There's a photograph of an Arizona Historical marker in the article itself giving a very brief history. The Arizona Place Names book refers to it as Apache Gulch, at a place called Apache Grove on Apache Creek, and says there are numerous Indian Ruins in the area (page 163). RecycledPixels (talk) 21:33, 18 October 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Flats, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apache Flats is an RV resort near Fort Huachuca [34][35]. The name appears to also apply to that area of the Fort, but I see no basis that this is a notable populated place. At best it can be redirected there. A GNIS listing does NOT pass GEOLAND. Reywas92^Talk 15:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete This seems to be an area within the fort which has mutated several times over in the last sixty-odd years, not even a "neighborhood"; one passing reference was to it as a "housing area". Mangoe (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable RV park and housing. –dlthewave ☎ 04:45, 19 October 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Oidak, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GEOLAND. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND, listed as a village in the Papago Reservation on a publication published by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs. Source added to article. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Properly sourced articles about depopulated indigenous settlements in North America serve an important encyclopedic purpose in documenting the land's earlier inhabitants and preventing the erasure of their history. This article was badly sourced before the nomination, but is better now after the source added by RecycledPixels and another by me. Its nomination appears to be part of a bad-faith spate of nominations in retaliation for other edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 19 October 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ak Komelik, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google Maps [36] shows a mere two buildings and some fenced enclosures. The topo [37] likewise shows nothing indicating that this "is a populated place". I suppose an isolated ranch is a place that is populated, but I see no basis that this is a notable community. Reywas92^Talk 17:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Additional references added. Notability is not temporary, so it does not matter what it looks like on Google Earth today. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Properly sourced articles about depopulated indigenous settlements in North America serve an important encyclopedic purpose in documenting the land's earlier inhabitants and preventing the erasure of their history. This article was badly sourced before the nomination, but is better now. Its nomination appears to be part of a bad-faith spate of nominations in retaliation for other edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 19 October 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ak Chin, Pinal County, Arizona

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GEOLAND. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there actually any evidence besides the appearance in the GNIS database that this is a separate thing from Ak-Chin Village, Arizona, which the article claims it is within? If not, redirect. Hog Farm _Talk 15:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The topo map this name is derived from [38] gives me no indication why this would be a separately notable place. Reywas92^Talk 17:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect They seem to be one and the same. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget Ak-Chin Indian Community. These are 3 slightly different names for the same place. – S. Rich (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as there is no evidence it's a different place. Mangoe (talk) 00:12, 19 October 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 Districts of the British Virgin Islands#Electoral districts. Redirected as I see no articles for other BVI electoral districts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First Electoral District, British Virgin Islands

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

Another microstub entry: but all of the other "Nth electoral district, BVI" articles have been deleted already. See: User:Shevonsilva#Electoral_Districts_(British_Virgin_Islands) Imaginatorium (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a strange nom to me. Every electoral districts in my country is considered notable and has a page. Why wouldn't the BVI be the same? The people who live there vote in members for the BVI, so why wouldn't they be notable - I don't understand. If we have countries where all levels of democracy are mentioned, surely by default everywhere else should have the same claim to notability. The page is currently rubbish, but more information must exist about the voting system and electorate in the BVI, right? Other similarly small electoral districts in other parts of the world exist as decent pages on Wikipedia, such as Aldersgate which has 1465 potential voters. JMWt (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Districts of the British Virgin Islands#Electoral districts. Easy peasy. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:26, 18 October 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 Pepin Garcia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sancti Spiritus (cigar)

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

Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; database mentions and promotional material is what I can find online. Nythar (💬-🎃) 05:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Cuba. Nythar (💬-🎃) 05:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pepin Garcia per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 01:40, 25 October 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 Pepin Garcia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cabaiguán (cigar)

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

Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; mostly database mentions and advertisements are what I can find online. Nythar (💬-🎃) 05:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Cuba. Nythar (💬-🎃) 05:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pepin Garcia per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 01:42, 25 October 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 Pepin Garcia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Padilla Miami

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

Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; mostly database mentions are what I can find online. Nythar (💬-🎃) 04:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Cuba. Nythar (💬-🎃) 04:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pepin Garcia per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 01:43, 25 October 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 Bobsleigh at the 1976 Winter Olympics – Four-man. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Porzia

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Highest rank was 11 in the 1976 Olympics and there doesn't seem to be enough reliable sources to be notable. Nythar (💬-🎃) 04:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Italy. Nythar (💬-🎃) 04:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bobsleigh at the 1976 Winter Olympics – Four-man per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 25 October 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 and salt. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okezue Bell

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

Persistent COI/UPE, has been deleted and draftified time and again and constantly recreated/yanked back into mainspace. It's been G11'd twice (it would have been three times, but mine was denied) and for good reason. A raft of references all of which are dubious/suspect/passing/primary are provided to attest to the brilliance of this "inventor, scientist and engineer, and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) promoter, as well as a social activist." - subject is still at school. Enough is enough. Delete and SALT for the love of Mike... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Nigeria, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For your convenience, the page log! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See pages like Gitanjali Rao (scientist), who is also still at school. All the sources of the page are validated and there is no conflict of interest, as I, the author of this page have no connection with Okezue Bell. The subject has also raised significant sums of money for startup projects that have been piloted around the globe and his work has already been identified by Google: https://g.co/kgs/T1okTz. He is also on several global forums, including a board with Leonardo DiCaprio: https://perfectday.com/sustainability-council/ (where he also founded the panel of students on the board) and a central feature on the NASDAQ: https://thecenter.nasdaq.org/foe-okezue-bell-fidutam/, among several other international honors, clearly indicating notoriety. There is also an encyclopedic tone used throughout the article, never sounding laudatory and is completely objective...it seems as though your only reasoning for deleting the page is that it the subject is young.

Also note that previous deletions were due to a non-encyclopedic tone and other issues with the page content, not the subject itself, as you're suggesting. This article should NOT be deleted. 1033307869edits (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the admin who declined the CSD G11 deletion. I wasn't aware of the article's history. But when I reviewed the page, it wasn't the typical page that gets tagged as advertising and promotional. I thought it could use a more deliberate review here at AFD where the citations could be examined rather than a quickie page deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, Liz I make no complaint, I agreed with your rationale and held off AfD purely as I consider it a final solution. Every other avenue having been explored, we're here... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reliable source is Sundiata Post but that is a press release so not independent ("he is described as...."). I also noted the Shiqiperi Gazette cites Sundiata as their source so is a circular source. The Forbes article was written by a contributor rather than staff so not a reliable source, nor is Getting Smart (they are a consulting firm which offers marketing services,). Other sources are brief mentions, blogs which are generally considered unreliable, or interviews or his publications which are not independent. I checked Google News and Proquest but did not find any significant coverage about him. He is accomplished but I do not find he currently meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. S0091 (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - then salt so that it must go through AfC if at some point in the future they meet GNG, and to discourage the persistent UPE. Currently, fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 08:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be salted given the history. S0091 (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. SMBMovieFan (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The source analysis by the nominator is accurate. WP:SALT to prevent future problems as this has been a chronic issue.4meter4 (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry for Music

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

Listed sources do not have significant coverage and thus fails WP:NGO. They are mostly more about the founder Jeff Campbell than the organization it self. 0xDeadbeef 03:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Education, and Washington, D.C.. 0xDeadbeef 03:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:59, 4 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!} 04:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A simple gnews search for '"Hungry for Music" nonprofit -wikipedia' renders 188 ghits. I identified four as reliable sources on the search's initial page and applied them to the end of a paragraph as anchoring citation asserting notability. One of the used sources was from NPR and directly detailed the org, the second NPR feature since 2010. This non-profit gets significant direct coverage. Of the two from local sites, Louisville Courier-Journal was from 2017 and the other from Beverly Review this past July. This non-profit gets sustained and recent coverage. I consider MusicFestNews as being reliable and independent for meta-music related news. This non-profit gets diverse coverage. I will adopt this page, if kept. No foul against nominator User:0xDeadbeef, but I would encourage them to hone their WP:BEFORE. My search was essentially a button click on the AfD window. Let's not throw out the babies with the bathwater. BusterD (talk) 02:05, 23 October 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. Closing as Delete because after 2, not 3, relists, there is no one advocating to Keep this article. Ordinarily, I'd close as Soft Delete but that is not possible here so Delete it is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wadanohara and the Great Blue Sea

AfDs for this article:

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

Sadly, this game from Deep-Sea Prisoner (the same person who made Mogeko Castle) does not meet WP:GNG. I have seen nothing from the reliable sources search engine that provides coverage or reviews. Oddly enough, the manga adaptation has a bit more coverage than the game itself (small blurbs from Crunchyroll, Anime News Network), but I don't think that will make the manga notable as well. Sparkl^talk 02:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Video games, and Anime and manga. Sparkl^talk 02:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Close No Response in 3 relists, No Consensus.
PerryPerryD Talk To Me 19:32, 24 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!} 04:33, 11 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!} 04:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I too am not finding anything useful. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:44, 25 October 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 03:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins

AfDs for this article:

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

This article suffers the same problems as the articles deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of browser engines (CSS support) (2nd nomination) - it's a mass of often-outdated technical detail with too little context. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extremely niche, and it looks like not a single one of the programs mentioned are notable enough to have their own page. By WP:NOTDIRECTORY this appears to be "a resource for conducting business," and has many of the problems mentioned there, such as changing product prices and information that can't be maintained. It may be a useful resource to some people, but it doesn't seem like something that belongs in an encyclopedia. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete techie cruft, NOTDIR. Of basically no interest to the general audience Wikipedia caters to. Dronebogus (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also per earlier AfD where it was almost deleted. Orientls (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely tech cruft, WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTGUIDE. None of the add-ins are even notable. Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 19 October 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 03:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marlman, Colorado

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

Exactly as described in the placenames book: a rail stop, not a settlement. GHits were clickbait and GBooks only came up with a variety of surname references having nothing to do with this spot. Mangoe (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Colorado. Skynxnex (talk) 14:33, 18 October 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 03:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Gray (radio executive)

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

The award doesn't appear to means he passes WP:ANYBIO "Gray was named one of...The annual list is compiled by broadcasting trade publication Radio Ink, which accepts nominations for outstanding contributions to the promotion of the African American radio industry." and I can find no other evidence of coverage to make this businessman notable. Star Mississippi 01:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Radio. Star Mississippi 01:53, 18 October 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 Bing Crosby discography. ✗plicit 03:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yours Is My Heart Alone (album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The Allmusic reference confirms the album exists but not that it is notable. The article's previous PROD notice was removed so a soft delete is not possible. Dan arndt (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, happy to support a redirect to Bing Crosby discography. Dan arndt (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bing Crosby discography per nominator. Couldn't find any additional coverage myself. QuietHere (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bing Crosby discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 07:48, 22 October 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 03:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bing and Connee

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The Allmusic reference confirms the album exists but not that it is notable. The article's previous PROD notice was removed so a soft delete is not possible. Dan arndt (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Found no valid additional coverage in my own search. QuietHere (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. No possible redirect target per WP:XY since both singers are notable. SBKSPP (talk) 07:48, 22 October 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 03:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Feymark

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

The highest office that he got is winning the municipal election, and in my opinion that has not satisfy the requirement of WP:NPOL yet. He lost the general election and the regional election. There is nothing in the article that showed that he is notable otherwise. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per norminator. Currently doesn't demonstrate enough to satisfy WP:NPOL. Jamiebuba (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reasoning as in the similar case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikael Simm. /Julle (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at this time no notability indicated. Could be recreated in future.BabbaQ (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some power within the party structure, but no indications of satisfying GNG nor NPOL. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:NPOL, as per above it could be recreated in the future. echidnaLives - talk - edits 22:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nommed; it's not just that he doesn't meet NPOL yet, we don't know that he ever will (CRYSTALBALL and all that). Sources are all primary and/or routine campaign reporting etc. --

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 03:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7th Standard Bank Ovation Awards

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

No significant coverage. The other years don't have articles. SL93 (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any noteworthy coverage either. The information on the page would be better suited on articles the page links to if it were deemed important enough to include. It's kinda self-evidently not notable. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 01:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The awards program itself might be notable (it's lacking it's own page currently, but covered somewhat at National Arts Festival), but I can't see why this particular year of it would be. I'd also support redirecting to National Arts Festival. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:29, 18 October 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 withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Web (album)

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

The artist page itself Giant Claw is questionable on notability (I'll be checking that in a bit), but this album from said artist does not meet WP:MUSIC notability at all. It's got a tiny bit of media mention, but it's entirely inherited from the artist itself and just isn't notable enough in it's own right. The vast majority of citations in the article are meaningless or circular. It's written to make it look more important than it is. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 00:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Recant Yeah I fucked this one up I'm sorry. I retract this AfD. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 22:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM criteria 1. Dummy ([39]), Fact (UK magazine) ([40]), NPR Music ([41]), Resident Advisor ([42]), and Tiny Mix Tapes ([43]) are all listed as "generally reliable sources" on WP:A/S, and that seems more than sufficient to indicate notable coverage. The article is definitely surprisingly high quality for a niche album, but that alone isn't a reason to delete. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reasons. There's enough reliable third party sources discussing the album.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are numerous WP:A/S-recognized sources on this article and many pertain directly to the record rather than the artist (i.e. the reviews). It definitely satisfies WP:NALBUM. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not entirely sure what the nominator means by "entirely inherited from the artist" or "meaningless or circular". The coverage is from known reliable sources (see WP:RSMUSIC entries for Dummy, Fact, NPR Music, RA, and TMT) and it's all regarding the album directly. QuietHere (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Levy

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

I can't find much of anything from newspapers.com, google books, the internet archive, or any other source that might turn something up on an American journalist and activist. It does pain me to delete an article about a claudia, so I'd be somewhat happy to be proven wrong. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Bernstein 2021	Written by her former employer			✘ No
Meyer		Journalist's blog		✘ No
AP 1986			Just a passing mention that she's involved with the suit	✘ No
Robertson 2004			Just takes a quote	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and United States of America. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On GBooks, she appears to be widely-cited, and on GNews, I found this: Getting There: Women in the newsroom (CJR, 1984, "The situation at The Washington Post is fairly typical. The Post has beefed up the number of women on its news staff considerably since it reached an out-of-court settlement in 1980 [...] But there are currently no women staff foreign correspondents, and “there aren’t many of us in power jobs,” says Claudia Levy, editor of the Post’s Maryland Weekly section and head of the women’s caucus that negotiated the settlement.") Beccaynr (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to WaPo in 1980, there had been a 1972 EEOC complaint filed on behalf of women employees that settled in 1980: ""It's strictly token back pay," said Claudia Levy, editor of the newspaper's real estate section and head of the women's committee that filed the complaint. "But the affirmative action element is promising."" In addition to that, she was also a lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit alleging violations of federal labor law related to overtime pay (NYT/AP, 1986), which is not a passing mention, because the brief article is directly about what she (and her co-plaintiffs) have done. Beccaynr (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post source for the EEOC complaint wouldn't count for notability, it's not an independent source (though it is reputable). She's one of five lead plaintiffs in the NYT case, which I guess counts but only somewhat? She is pretty widely cited in GBooks, I presume for her role in breaking the Watergate story – could that count? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JOURNALIST#1 includes, "is widely cited by peers or successors", and I have not yet looked closely at the specifics. Also, the Columbia Journalism Review is independent/reliable and discusses the same EEOC complaint reported by WaPo - but four years later, supporting its significance and placing it in further secondary context. I cited WaPo to help guide research - it has more specific dates and details, and none of this is currently in the article. The NYT/AP article indicates there may be more coverage available for the other case, and that she had a lead role. Beccaynr (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment via the WP Library, her obit writing is noted by The Progressive, in an October 2001 article "Why the 'Washington Post' Op-Ed Page Is So Dull" as follows: "Oddly, while the op-ed page languishes, much of the rest of the paper is a showcase for journalism ranging from first-class to world-class. There is the investigative reporting of Sari Horwitz, the criticism of Tom Shales and Tim Page, Mary McGrory, the Metro columns of Courtland Milloy, Bob Levey, and Marc Fisher, and the obituary writing of Claudia Levy and Adam Bernstein."
- via ProQuest, the AP/NYT reports "Complaint on Sex Discrimination Settled at The Washington Post" 20 Nov 1980 ProQuest 424015447, including "Claudia Levy, head of the women's committee that filed the complaint, said: "It's strictly token back pay. But the affirmative action element is promising.""
- Politico reprinted quotes from her WaPo obit, including: "a Washington Post journalist and union activist who battled successfully in the 1970s for the increased hiring of women in the newsroom as well as more equitable pay and opportunities for their advancement [...] In a reporting and Newspaper Guild career spanning nearly 40 years, Ms. Levy was wholly unimpressed by power and wholly unintimidated by those who wielded it." Dec. 9, 2021 ProQuest 2608022757.
- On GBooks, it appears that her obits and other writing (including about women's activism), not her early 1970s reporting on court proceedings related to the Watergate burglars, are what are cited in various books. Beccaynr (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict with Beccaynr above, who draws attention to some of the same material] Comment, leaning Keep. This might be one of those IAR cases. I can see that the Washington Post obit is not independent, but it seems reasonably reliable and enables writing a decent article about Levy. Her political work appears to have been in the 1970s which is a bit of a dead spot for online coverage. Via Proquest: Half para noting the WashPost obit (Passing: Claudia Levy Anonymous. Media Report to Women; Coltons Point Vol. 50, Iss. 1, (Winter 2022): 23.). Another similar with just a quotation from the WP obit (POLITICO Playbook: Why tongues are wagging inside the House GOP Lizza, Ryan; Bade, Rachael; Daniels, Eugene; Palmeri, Tara. Politico, Arlington: POLITICO LLC. Dec 9, 2021. ) Via WL Ebsco: There's a brief note on her retirement (couple of sentences and quotation; Cashing Out. American Journalism Review, 10678654, Apr/May2004, Vol. 26, Issue 2). Her obituary writing is praised: "Oddly, while the op-ed page languishes, much of the rest of the paper is a showcase for journalism ranging from first-class to world-class. There is ... the obituary writing of Claudia Levy and Adam Bernstein. " (McCarthy, Colman. Progressive. Oct2001, Vol. 65 Issue 10, p25. 4p.) T Quotation (Pekow, Charles. Labor rulings in conflict. Quill, 00336475, Apr95, Vol. 83, Issue 3). Lots more hits in both, but seem to be several other people of the same name, one of whom is in the news a lot atm. Haven't checked GoogleBooks. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also leaning Keep with a referral to the Women in Red Wikiproject for assistance with further developing the article. There is independent and reliable coverage about her organizing work and two lawsuits, as well as commentary about her obit writing and evidence that her work has been widely-cited, so she appears to have some WP:BASIC notability both as a journalist and an activist. Beccaynr (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her work as a member of the union bargaining committee is also noted in Labor Relations Week, 1987 (GBooks), and the AJR source noted above also includes a mini-profile of her and other reporters: "CLAUDIA LEVY, age 60 Post life : 38 years ; her last job was writing obituaries Post Post life : working as a part - time manager of an art gallery What it's like out there : " I do silk painting , which I've been doing for years ...", but it is not completely accessible. Beccaynr (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she's likely notable for her journalism and union work, and it looks like there's just enough out there to support an article. I was able to add a few more details with refs. Her middle name was Dale and she was born in December 1943, not in 1944. That may help with locating more and better sources. Penny Richards (talk) 16:51, 19 October 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 Death's Dynamic Shroud. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 01:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Try Living Like This

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

I don't poke AfD anymore. However, I just undid a hasty redirect for the band page for Death's Dynamic Shroud as it does meet notability guidelines, and in the process found an album page of the band that definitely does not meet guidelines. So out of completeness I am putting this one up. It has no major or significant media coverage on it's own and is no where near close to standard for WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG as a whole. The article is basically just cited with youtube twitter and insignificant links, and a search reveals there is nothing notable. Further, more recent releases by the band have media coverage of their own but don't have enough to have stand alone album pages, so this one absolutely doesn't meet it --Tautomers_{(T C)} 00:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Death's Dynamic Shroud. The Tiny Mix Tapes review ([44]) is non-trivial coverage coming from a source listed as "generally reliable" at WP:A/S. I don't see any other direct coverage, though it's got a bit written about it on two Fact (magazine) lists ([45], [46]). Beyond that the only coverage I can find is a mention on a Pitchfork review of another of their albums ([47]). I could see an argument being made for this being enough non-trivial independent coverage to meet WP:NALBUM but I think it falls short and doesn't pass notability. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per QuietHere, changing to redirect. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Death's Dynamic Shroud: As Dylnuge said, the TMT and Fact coverage is valid, but that's all I can find as well and it falls just short of notability standards. QuietHere (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Death's Dynamic Shroud. Fails WP:NALBUM per Dylnuge's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 07:49, 22 October 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.

[1] Jennings, L. A. (2021). Mixed martial arts: a history from ancient fighting sports to the UFC. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp. 190–191. ISBN 978-1-5381-4195-3.

[2] Hattaway, Paul (2004). Peoples of the Buddhist World: A Christian Prayer Diary. William Carey Library. ISBN 978-0-87808-361-9.

[3] Phuntsho, Karma (2014-08-15). The History of Bhutan. Haus Publishing. ISBN 978-1-908323-59-0.

[4] Brenzinger, Matthias (2015-07-31). Language Diversity Endangered. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. ISBN 978-3-11-090569-4.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]