Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 28 November 30 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Castell[edit]

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

Non-notable actor with no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Kharuk[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet the criteria for sports or creatives. A brief glance at the sources (via machine translation) will reveal that the sources are mostly completely irrelevant to this subject, mere listings or bare mentions (not substantial coverage). Salimfadhley (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This debate suffered from multiple problems, not least the out-of-process removal of the AfD template on the article, even though the AfD was not closed. At this point there is no consensus for deletion, but given the weak nom and the other deficiencies in this debate, no prejudice to a re-nomination in the near future. Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Stoicism[edit]

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

This article is using the name of a private organisation as it's title. modernstoicism.com the original author is a member of the Modern Stoicism Ltd Organisation and a former student of Lawrence Becker, who is cited as if to represent him as the intellectual founder of a new philosophy, with followers that adhere to his doctrines. This is false, there is no such consensus, Becker is not an influential author outside a small group of acquaintances. His writings are controversial within the Stoic community...

The general quality is poor...

While it is true that Albert Ellis referenced Stoicism in his Rational EMotive Behavioural Therapy, it is not at all foundational, and both REBT and CBT are psychotherapies, not ethical philosophies.

Viktor Frankl whos is referenced identified himself as an Existentialist. that he named his philosophy Logotherapy, is incidental.

The alleged "modern Stoicism movement" circulates around Modern Stoicism ltd. and they events they organise.

Of the people reference

Alasdair MacIntyre is an Aristotelian has not written on Stoicism other than briefly, and dismissively, in After Virtue. Martha Nussbaum is another critic of Stoicism, not an adherent. Lawrence Becker has been discussed, he is now deceased but none of these academics have ever been participants in any way in any movement.

Mouron Rouge (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article as a whole is vague, misleading and uninformative and is pushing a very personal agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouron Rouge (talk • contribs) 22:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

= Edit =:

I saw this in the comments below: "promotional and soapboxing". This would describe this article very accurately.

Mouron Rouge (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and was transcluded to the log for 14 November (which was when the nom originally tagged the article). I've added the template and "moved" the transclusion to the 22 November log. I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall talk 22:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apparently a wholly spurious collection of ad hominems without substance conflating a generic thing with some entity that uses it. Stoicism does in fact have a modern incarnation and Neostoicisim refers to something from the 18th century. The article is 6 years old and doesn't fit the various apparently unhinged complaints above. My intention is to redirect it to Contemporary Stoicism. Lycurgus (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Lycurgus (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep should say haven't examined closely, the prima facie situation is keep and investigate alleged advert. The various ad hominems to major relevant figures and the ground existential matter of contemporary version of virtually any major philosophy school of the past, e.g. Aristotelianism (if you will) which is quite common in right wing layers, spoke for themselves with the age of the article and apparent input. I'm not in a rush, don't know how long it will stay (re)listed but can wait a month or whatever. Lycurgus (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a consensus was reached, I went ahead and did the move and a superficial redact. The matter of the contested source "Becker" can proceed as a normal issue on the kept page.
  • Keep The poor quality does not contradict the importance of the page's existence. Perhaps, to address the most substantial of the claims against this page, it should be renamed to avoid conflation with the organization. 'Contemporary Stoicism' is advisable. 130.15.35.14 (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)RHug.[reply]
  • I formatted your vote and signed mine for ease of processing. Lycurgus (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a coherent, policy-based argument for deletion. The current nomination reads like a WP:ATA list and it shouldn't the job of other editors to have to wade through and interpret it. —  AjaxSmack  03:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:N there is no modern movement based on the writings of Lawrence Becker, there is no movement with any consensus around the principles set forth in the article, that is a complete fiction. This article is entirely devoted to portraying Lawrence Becker as a well known ideologue with a following, which is untrue. Becker is mentioned 19 times, whereas there are no references to the founders of the philosophy, nor any continuity with them. I suggest moving to 'Lawrence C. Becker' as this is the principle topic of the article. Mouron Rouge (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck the "Delete" as a duplicate !vote--further comments are welcome, but your nomination is implicitly a delete !vote already. --Finngall talk 17:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support changing the name to Contemporary Stoicism and the revision/removal of the references to the "New Stoicism" of Lawrence Becker, which as pointed out below, has no consensus Mouron Rouge (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think a name change to contemporary Stoicism eliminated confusion between the Modern Stoicism organization. contemporary or modern are adjectives not part of the proper name. I feel the section on the differences between modern and ancient Stoicism is very poor, based on one interpretation that very few who consider themselves part of the "modern/contemporary Stoicism" would agree with. Broadfootrj (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getcha (disambiguation)[edit]

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

I'm not used to seeing one word from a title being a reason to create a disambiguation page. I mean, Top Gun isn't listed in Top (disambiguation) or Gun (disambiguation). This is more of an intitle search than a disambiguation page. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Tranberg[edit]

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

I came to this biography looking to fix it up, since he appears to be a successful film biographer who has written the authoritative biographies of actors like Robert Taylor. However, after doing some fairly thorough searching in various places, the only secondary reviews of his work that I could find were the Santa Fe New Mexican review of Fred MacMurray: A Biography and a one-paragraph review of Robert Taylor: A Biography in the journal Nebraska History that doesn't rise to WP:SIGCOV by my account. WP:NAUTHOR criterion 4c requires that their work has received "significant critical attention", and I unfortunately don't think his work rises to that level. I can find nothing secondary at all about him as a person, and nothing even in primary sources about basic biographical information like where he attended college, so if kept this would necessarily be a permastub. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. None of the "keep" !votes rises above WP:ILIKEIT or is even remotely policy based. The appearance of several new SPA accounts raises suspicions of (meat)puppetry. Randykitty (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hưng Thịnh Corporation[edit]

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

Recently deleted under G11. Fails WP:NCORP. Still a piece of advertisement. DMySon (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - As Hoangnam4487 has said. One more thing about this subject that I’d like to mention is the fact that its brand name (Hưng Thịnh) – as mentioned in the “Scandals” section – has been copied by many other local organizations. Hence, when you search for information about it, you are likely to find many “fake” websites, which may make it difficult to determine reliability. As a Vietnamese resident, I’d like to keep the article as a source for users to know which organization is the real Hưng Thịnh – this, I believe, may help prevent further crises and riots like the one that happened in Long An in 2020. Dangkhoa275 (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The information about this company is necessary for user but content of this page must be rewrite Hamhochoisg (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:G4 "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Addams[edit]

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

Porn star bio without good references, thus failing WP:BASIC and WP:ENTERTAINER. Previously deleted 3 times at AfD. This time around, the references consist of: 1. Celebrities Galore: user-generated content; 2. TMZ article: trivial mention; 3. Most popular porn star listicle previously dismissed at AfD; 4. AVN press release: not independent; 5. International Business Times: a generally unreliable source; 6. GQ Mexico: trivial mention porn awards roster, no significant coverage. The awards and nominations would not even have satisfied the now deprecated PORNBIO SNG. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous afds, lack of sources and can we salt this now please? Spartaz Humbug! 20:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as irretrievable BLP and salt this and other variants of the name - David Gerard (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. A BEFORE didn't bring anything up, and this fails WP:ENTERTAINER. The refs are not RS by a longshot. --Kbabej (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG should be deleted. Sorry for bringing this page up in the first place. Notadogbutafish (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Surely this could be a speedy delete? WCMemail 10:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J C Chaudhry[edit]

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

This article was moved prematurely out of Draft by cut-paste, bypassing the WP:AFC process. Additionally, WP:MEAT and WP:SOCK were at play creating the article in the first place, which speaks to a possible WP:COI.

Moreover, although there has been some press regarding business, does not seem to rise to level of WP:NBIO: associated with company that no longer exists, as it was sold to a competitor. I suspect any awards or honours given are not notable enough under WP:ANYBIO. WP:NAUTHOR is not reached. Poojean (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article was once rewritten. The earlier one was without inline citations and proper references. Did add the inline citations. Will try to find more contextual and relevant citations. was asking help for writing the same (202.88.237.193 (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep The article was once rewritten and no promotional content has been uploaded. Please guide on rectification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.80.209 (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly promo, not notable, and created/edited by COI editors. So I see no reason to keep it. It's not like the person who created it can't do another draft at some point and actually send it through the AfC process next time either. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a request to all those who are suggesting to delete the page - please guide on what changes are to be made ? MR Chaudhry is a example of how a normal teacher can become a successful entrepreneur with right ethics. Every content on his page is realistic about him, a person like Mr Chaudhry doesn’t need PR. He have achieved the highest success in his life. His intention is only to give back to the society thats it.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4050:2E85:4ABF:D5C5:A078:F313:B682 (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the Wikipedians should guide on maintaining the page, Mr Chaudhry has been covered by the Mainstream media, also he has never sold his company to a competitor - Byjus were never into classroom sessions, They have rather merged up and Mr Chaudhry is a Stakeholder of complete conglomerate of Byjus which includes Aakash Inst as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimplesethi (talk • contribs) 04:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is a renowned entrepreneur and a Inspiration to many people in India. This profile should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.80.209 (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: 115.248.80.209 (talk) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
  • Keep Mr Chaudhry is a philanthropist, This account should not be deleted. It can be reworked. What really touched me was that he has constructed a place of worship at Vrindavan. there is an altruistic thought of him behind constructing it. He wanted a place where people could come from all parts of the country to seek blessings and be at peace. It is a spiritual place with a natural environment and lush greenery. Catching the first glimpse of the location in the morning gives a sense of peace, which I liked the most! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4050:2DBB:1620:D830:920A:30A7:D39F (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Continuously adding Keep comments from different ip addresses, strong indication of Wikipedia:SOCK. Also fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. MickyShy (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mr. J C Chaudhry is a true inspirator. Just because of his motivation and inspiration, my son is a doctor today. I support this Wikipedia page as many are there who still need to know about this man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4050:2DBB:1620:A776:B844:41C1:3E37 (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and any other applicable guideline. The sock-puppet chorus is just embarrassing. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the news are not significant and not enough. Chelokabob (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's very difficult to come to an objective conclusion when the discussion keeps getting disrupted in this way. The sock-puppet chorus is counter-productive as well as embarrassing. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hopelessly promotional, and that's enough reason, especially since notability as anauthor or scholar is extremely borderline at best, and the refs are insufficiently reliable for GNG. . The keep arguments are straightforward ILIKEIT. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trapped: Buried Alive[edit]

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

I could only find one short review. No other coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Mahler[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO; the best sources I can find are this article by WMOT, not quite significant coverage, and only a passing mention in this NPR piece. No claim to notability other than winning a non-notable championship. The article is currently only sourced to Mahler's own website. Lennart97 (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Views split between keeping and merging - neither of which require administrator action to delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Pason[edit]

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

Perennial candidate and fringe party figure fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. KidAd • SPEAK 17:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While it's clear that there is fairly strong consensus that most of these articles should be either deleted or redirected, this bundled AfD is a mess and it's impossible for a closer to sort through all of this and come to a conclusion. Bundled AfDs are great for situations when the same result will likely apply to all of the articles, which clearly isn't the case here. And to top it all off, the nominator tries to withdraw half of the articles from the AfD after they've already been discussed at length. I'd recommend nominating each of these articles separately and having a separate discussion about what to do with each one. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kilogram per cubic metre[edit]

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

Per deletion discussion for Gram_per_cubic_metre, none of these other composite units, or the template page above them, are notable. PianoDan (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination includes the following pages in addition to Kilogram per cubic metre:

Gram per cubic centimetre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gram per litre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Metre squared per second (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'll nominate the related templates separately. PianoDan (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Even one specific unit is borderline. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tonne. Praemonitus (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it doesn't make sense to me to redirect a unit of density to a unit of mass. PianoDan (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even though the tonne is defined in terms of kilograms per cubic metre? I see. I'll just note that seems more pedantic that helpful to the typical reader. Praemonitus (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tonne ISN'T defined in terms of kilograms per cubic meter. It would be circular use a unit of mass as part of the definition of a unit of mass. A tonne is the mass of a cubic meter of water at 4 C, but that's a definition of mass based on a unit of length. PianoDan (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • A tonne is one cubic metre of water. The definitions are interrelated. Praemonitus (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • No. A tonne is 1000 kg. And 1000 kg is approximately the mass of one cubic metre of water. The definitions are not interrelated. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • A tonne is defined as a thousand kilograms.--Srleffler (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be clear - Srleffler and Dondervogel are right. I was not as clear as I intended. It would be circular to use a unit of mass to define ITSELF. Defining a tonne (which is 2000 kilograms) in terms of kilograms per cubic meter for a cubic meter of substance, is that - defining kilograms in terms of kilograms. Obviously the real definition of the tonne is what has been said - 2000 kilograms. PianoDan (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it doesn't make sense to redirect a unit of density to a unit of mass.--Srleffler (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Density#Common_units or create Units of density and redirect there. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect kilogram per cubic metre, gram per cubic centimetre, and gram per litre to Density#Common units, as it's just possible that some specialized application might measure density using one of those. Delete metre squared per second because it's not a unit for one specific quantity, and matching quantities to the combinations of SI base units their dimensions happen to work out to is trivia. I mean, it would also be the SI unit of "specific action", but who cares? XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To all those !voting redirect. All specific units of density including "Gram per cubic meter" are of equal value. That's extremely high for consistent actions for all the units. We obviously don't want the articles on these topics so the current redlinks of Gram per cubic metre and the redirects from other units at the same time are the exact worst thing we can do for readers here - our job is to educate people and we don't do that by deleting one article, then redirecting the others and giving them (if they are lucky) inconsistent search results. Either we recreate Gram per cubic metre as a redirect or we delete everything. Neel.arunabh (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I am making this argument because I have been influenced by a similar comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 4#iPhone 9 saying To all those !voting delete. This is consistently getting 250 hits a month. That's extremely high for a redirect and so very clearly this is something people are looking for. We obviously don't want an article on this topic so a redlink is the exact worst thing we can do for readers here - our job is to educate people and we don't do that by deleting the redirect and giving them (if they are lucky) unhelpful search results. that I have been mimicking that same comment to to bring about an argument in every debate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neel.arunabh (talk • contribs) 21:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly oppose the statement "[a]ll specific units of density ... are of equal value." Kilogram per cubic meter is the coherent unit of density in the SI system. See the BIPM publication The International System of Units (SI),[1] section 1.4 where this is defined. Similarly gram per cubic centimetre is the coherent unit of density in the cgs system. If there were a mgs system of measurement in common use, gram per cubic metre would be the coherent unit of density in that system, as you well know. The issue with the latter's article was that there is no commonly used mgs system of measurement. --Srleffler (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • When people calculate the density of a particular object, they do not care about what unit system they are using. They can even calculate in mg/m^3. And there are may equivalent units as well. I am not going to accept even one unit unless I get every possible unit. And this is not just on Wikipedia. Even in reality, I am a male, and I am attracted to my female friends. I will not accept anything that my male friends give me unless I get the same thing from my female friends as well. I have to be on PianoDan's side. Neel.arunabh (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's... not my side. I was arguing that none of THESE units are inherently notable, not that NO composite units are inherently notable. It would be absurd, for example, to claim that Miles Per Hour isn't notable, as that article has plenty of reliable sources establishing notability. Srleffler is making a good case that as the standard units of density in SI and cgs, kg/m^3 and g/cm^3 are inherently notable, and I certainly won't go to the mat defending deletion for those two. I don't understand your metaphor about friends at all. PianoDan (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am just saying that I will not accept one thing unless I get other things as well. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • This sounds like a WP:WHATABOUT argument.--Srleffler (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I really need have either all or none. S Marshall will be a more helpful contributor than everyone here. Neel.arunabh (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thank you for your several kind remarks about me in this debate but I have no special wisdom to offer here that others haven't already provided. I do think the encyclopaedic concept is density and someone searching for kg/m3 is probably looking for help with how to perform the arithmetic.—S Marshall T/C 10:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think that detail should be covered in density itself. Let me also hear from Hobit. Neel.arunabh (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Sorry for being clueless--why was I pinged here? Hobit (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Hobit To let you know that we can get everything covered in the Density article itself. Or as Dondervogel 2 suggests, we can create an article called Units of density and dedicate sections to SI units, CGS units, and other units. Neel.arunabh (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I guess I'm trying to figure out why I was pinged. Hobit (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deleting Kilogram per cubic metre and gram per cubic centimetre. These are the coherent units of density in two common systems of measurement. The former is specifically identified as such by the BIPM, and is therefore notable.[1] Saying "Per deletion discussion for Gram_per_cubic_metre" is not sufficient. The issue there was different in that there is no commonly used system of measurement for which that is the coherent unit of density. (UCUM not being a system of measurement). I'm unsure about the other two articles. Metre squared per second is identified by BIPM as the coherent derived unit of kinematic viscosity, though. --Srleffler (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination for kilogram per cubic metre and gram per cubic centimetre, per Srleffler's valid argument. PianoDan (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am really running out of breath and I really will never agree with the density articles. I have found some informative articles where "grams per cubic meter" is actually being used.
    • And I will also ping my friend S Marshall for more helpful suggestions as I do not agree with the current status or with the current contributors. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the BIPM reference should straightaway be added in the Density article itself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neel.arunabh (talk • contribs) 23:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment the fact that a unit is USED does not make it NOTABLE. Coverage of the unit makes it notable. For example, "Megagauss Oersted" is a unit often used in describing permanent magnets. But the unit ITSELF is not particularly notable. PianoDan (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gram per cubic centimetre. We do not need articles on multiple combinations of units just to state they exist and provide conversions. 15:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (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 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 23:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Connors[edit]

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

This article is almost entirely sourced to the subject's own website. After the OR and trivia is removed, there'd be nothing left. A BEFORE didn't bring up anything of note. Kbabej (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Khair Al Shaal[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited from the available references. Moved multiple times into the draft (Draft:Muhammad Khair Al Shaal). You must follow the advise that is commented by Faddle. MickyShy (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @MickyShy Before I comment on the deletion discussion it might be helpful to link to whatever advice I may have given. Where did I offer this advice, please? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I imagine it was my AFC decline, on the creating editor's talk page. I have reflected that in my !vote below FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fiddle, Yes, i found your comment here. MickyShy (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is a notability issue here. The subject has definitely written books, but neither Goodreads nor https://www.noor-book.com are WP:RS. This means that the only reference that might qualify is www.raffy.me which is a site that requires more thought. All I can find on its home page is a quite by Neil Gaiman. This means that we have no references that are about the subject and are independent of the subject and are in muktioke independent sources and are reliable sources. A WP:BEFORE finds me nothing useful about the subject. Thus, unless suitable references can be found and added to the article, the subject fails WP:BIO FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This appears to be a copy and paste move to draft space of Draft:Muhammad Khair Al Shaal. On that basis I am about to request a full history merge. The comment referred to by the nom is
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Please note that whisking an article you moved to mainspace back to draft is not an appropriate way of avoiding a deletion process. The appropriate thing s to improve the article so that it will survive
placed on the draft. The fact that this has been whacked back and forth between Draft and Main space so often means that we should not close this as returning it to draft. It should stand or fall on its merits FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrendSpider[edit]

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

The article primarily discusses the features of the company's main product of the same name (which arguably should be the topic of the article rather than the company). The article was created by an editor who has now been blocked for advertising/promotion, and a PROD was removed by a new editor upon addition of several sources to the talk page. These sources, and pretty much all in-depth sources on the page are not independent of the subject as they all offer free trials via affiliate links (some of which need to be followed as they cleverly use redirects built into their own sites to hide this). This seems overly promotional and I have not been able to find sources suggesting a pass of WP:GNG. ASUKITE 15:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are plenty of good articles about them such as this [9] and also reviews here that don't have any affiliate links--> [10], [11], [12] and [13], so it meets WP:GNG. As far as the nominators argument that the article should be about the product rather than the company, he may have a point there, but this doesn't justify a deletion. The article can easily be revised to say "Trendspider is a software" rather than it is a "company." Should others here agree to such an edit, I will be willing to make the edit myself. I actually improved this article previously and expanded by adding the RainDrops section, which in itself is notable due to its use by Nasdaq, Yahoo Finance, TheStreet and others. Additionally, there is a recent news about them they winning an award by Benzinga [14] and a lot more articles come up in Google, which I have not checked. Jaxarnolds (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the sources you've presented, 1 and 5 are the same, and amount to a press release. Although the article claims to be written by the editorial staff at the publication, the links in the page go through PRNewswire, a common publisher of press releases. TechBullion does in fact use an affiliate link, verifiable by clicking on the free trial offer at the bottom of the page. Source 4 (after using google translate) does not make any mention of TrendSpider at all and is about a different topic.
    The only potential here is the review by Wesley Crowder on StockTradingTeacher.com, which does not appear to use an affiliate link, but presents a similar redirect scheme which indicates that it may have at one point. The review itself is highly laudatory, to the point where I question its editorial neutrality. Also striking are the use of emphasis, as well as difficult-to-source info such as the company's backstory (as well as how its described, using tropes that are common in startup stories typically used to promote companies and products), and the mention of competitors but lack of direct names (a critical review should ideally list the competitors of a product, something which affiliate-based programs tend to dislike as it draws business away). I would say that on its face that this review is highly questionable and does not appear to be even slightly neutral. ASUKITE 00:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears I had provided you the wrong link for 4. And this was supposed to be 5, which is detailed review with FAQ without any affiliate links. They are corrected now. But even with removing the article that may be a press release and the one that may be an affiliate, there is still stocktradingteacher and plenty more articles in Google about them. I also believe that even if there is an affiliate link, that does not mean the review is not legit. As you can see many of these reviewers have taken time to do in-depth and genuine reviews of the software. An affiliate link is like a banner ad. These sites need to make money somehow. Even major news sites like Yahoo, CNN, MSNBC, etc have affiliate links. For example, here is another legit and detailed review [15], which compares it to its competition, but he does have an affiliate link on the bottom. Still you cannot say that out of dozens (maybe over 50) reviews that exist online, none are legit genuine reviews. The fact that it has so much coverage shows that they meet WP:GNG. So I will stick to my keep vote. I have also found additional coverage on them on some stock trading books, which is very significant, see:
    The Ultimate Guide to Candlestick Chart Patterns , Moving Averages and The Ultimate Guide to Chart Patterns Jaxarnolds (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've read all the comments above and did a search of my own. I found these additional good articles and reviews  barchart which is a case study, and captainaltcoin a very good review. Mommmyy (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Out of sources provided there are some that are good to meet notability, such as coin-hero.de, sourceforge.net, barchart.com. The book citations provided by Jaxarnolds are also good. Chelokabob (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:1E refuted, no subsequent policy-based reasons for delete raised. Discussion as to whether the article should be renamed can proceed elsewhere. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Munawar Faruqui[edit]

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

Seems like WP:1E; only notable for his arrest and became sensation for a small period, I think to establish notability or for getting an individual article, One need in-depth coverage, not rely on arrest accident or any sensational news. Wiki is not NOTNEWS, Negligible significance outside that single event. Sturdyankit (chat) 15:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. In addition to the coverage of his arrest, he seems to have received a lot of news coverage after his decision this week to quite comedy, including in the international news media: [16], [17]. There's also at least a half page of coverage in this book, and any number of news pieces from the Indian media. His notability was marginal when he was arrested, but at this point it's not really in question. This nomination comes on the heels of a spate of coverage: as such it's very oddly timed, and I wonder if the OP followed WP:BEFORE. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vanamonde. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to 'Arrest of Munawar Faruqui,' or something like 'Godhra Joke controversy' since he isn't well-known and doesn't have much mention in WP:RS as a comedian outside of the context of that controversy. LΞVIXIUS💬 14:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As I demonstrated above, there is considerable coverage of his recent decision to quit comedy, which has little to nothing to do with his arrest. "Godhra Joke controversy" has no support at all as a title. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe the decision to quit was a part of the controversy mainly caused by some of his allegedly inflammatory jokes. (I merely used the Godhra title as an example). From where I stand, I see a strong case for calling the article 'Munawar Faruqui Controversy' or something similar, because all of his notability stems from the controversy itself, and not from his person. LΞVIXIUS💬 01:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Rename as per Levixius's interpretation. -Hatchens (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Umakant Bhalerao as he was the nominator of the first AfD. -Hatchens (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Munawar Faruqui is irrelevant. I personally don't even think he even passed high school or college. There are lot of stand up comedians in India doing the job due to failure in getting other formal jobs and bad education record. His name in showing up on internet (BLP violation removed). Nothing significant achievement as such. The person is neither a scholar, academic, Nobel Prize winner or even a peace activist. Sameer Wankhede article was deleted and removed from Wikipedia for the same reason. Just because your name appears in newspaper or media for a specific case or (Personal attack removed) in a country is not a precondition for being famous and notable in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news source biography rolodex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.185.161.245 (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment agreed!, Indian Netizens get viral without any proper reason or sometimes for any silly or random act they became headlines or trending on Twitter for a couple of hours/days, One can find a dozen of Indian sensational stand-ups or Netizens, but I think we can't create individual articles for them, Subject doesn't worth an Individual article (as of now). Sturdyankit (chat)
  • Neither of these comments has anything to with how we evaluate notability on Wikipedia. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have also read how notability is evaluated here, And as a comment, I was only putting some facts. Sturdyankit (chat)
  • Keep The notability of the subject has only increased (though marginally) since the article's two previous deletion nominations. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vanamonde. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per others - It seems like the continued coverage of other things he's done is a result of the arrest, not in spite of it. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 22:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eevee01(talk) 09:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Notable! Rename to “Arrest of Munawar Faruqui” Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:1E does not apply here as there have been multiple events and news items on him now. passes WP:GNG ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is definitely not a WP:1E case and hence the arguments over renaming the article aren't helpful. The subject has received enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angel (upcoming film)[edit]

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

An unreleased film that does not meet WP:NFF yet as its production is not notable. Should be deleted or draftified until it is released and meets the requirements of WP:NFILM. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: News about this Tamil film had come in 2018. Since then this film has not released and possibly never will. If it gets released then article can be re created. As of now this film does not pass WP:NFILMS and the article should be deleted. No point in sending to draft as nothing happened in 3 years. Unlikely to happen in next 6 months. Venkat TL (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. Premature article. Press releases don't qualify towards notability. Per WP:NFSOURCES, "Press releases, even if they are reprinted by sources unrelated to the production, are not considered independent." Delete. Platonk (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ksenia Svarovski[edit]

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

She isn't notable. She founded an online university of sorts for internet marketing. I searched in Russian too, and I don't see sources giving GNG. Mvqr (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mvqr! I have given enough sources about this person in my article. These are very respected international journals, such as Marie Claire, Cosmopolitan. Also, very famous Russian newspapers and magazines write about her, such as Komsomolskaya Pravda, Paparazzi, METRO, Argumenty i Fakty, Argumenty Nedeli, Izvestia and many others. There are 27 sources in total. I am very surprised. Sincerely,Олег Черкасский (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • 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. We can see secondary sources: articles about the person are repeated by other magazines and online publications.Олег Черкасский (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These sources are here to just refbomb: constantly repeating what she says. Not enough to pass GNG. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 19:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll save this article. I will correct my mistake.Олег Черкасский (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I corrected the mistakes in the text, made the correct links to authoritative sources and added a text about the character's activities. Олег Черкасский (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete complete WP:REFBOMBing of self-written posts and at least one of the other articles (Metro News) was published through the paid partnership program. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's clear that the criteria for notability have not been met. There's nothing we can say on Wikipedia that isn't simply a repetition of her own words. Akakievich (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you confirm your words with quotes? If not, then these are fake words.Олег Черкасский (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but I'm not sure what sort of quotes you want me to provide. Can you clarify? All the best, Akakievich (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The phrase "simply a repetition of her own words" confuses me. Any interview is a repetition of words, isn't it? If famous magazines consider this person worthy of publishing her words, I think we should listen to the opinion of experts. I prefer to write about living people, because if I make a mistake, they can read the article and point out the inaccuracy. I won't be upset if the article is deleted or moved to drafts. It's just a hobby for me. Sincerely Олег Черкасский (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is one of those internet "influencer" pages designed to use Wikipedia to inflate the significance and notability of its subject. – Athaenara ✉ 14:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Verdean Mozambican[edit]

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

Per this, this and this AFD, these is no need for this page. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. The episode with 5 people travelling does not seem notable. No relations page to merge to. Geschichte (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 23:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sharvari Wagh[edit]

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

Failing the notability criteria. Self promotion coverage on reliable sources. PangolinPedia (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PangolinPedia (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PangolinPedia (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a bit soon, but searching news turns up LOTS of references. It looks like she already qualifies by WP:GNG, though I haven't checked the sources in depth, and there will be more coverage on an ongoing basis. The last headline mention in a legimiate news source was 11 hours ago[18]. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as now it has more sources. There would be more coverage when film will release -- Parnaval (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Fanucchi[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage about the subject. Couple of mentions and a press-release-like bio on a bunch of websites like 1, 2. Fails notability guidelines. Less Unless (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep complies with WP:BASIC has received widespread news/media coverage. Louie (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Louie Can you provide any of those? We need in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. If you have found any - please add them here or directly into the article. Less Unless (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Less Unless please check if the updates are ok now and can you please reconsider to withdraw the nomination for deletion. Thks. Louie (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Louie, you have added a lot of sources - no doubt, but WP:GNG requires significant in depth coverage which lacks. There are couple sources that mention the subject as 'internationally appreciated' but where's the coverage? All the rest are just passing mentions. I'm sorry, but I still believe the article should be deleted. Best, Less Unless (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel sorry that you think that way. I really think that the article complies with the minimum required WP:GNG and those are guidelines not absolute rules. Well, that is the way I perceive them. I have seen much, much worse articles being rescued. Anyway, I will stop adding info/sources for now as it might be just a waste of time, but I appreciate your honest feedback. Thks. Louie (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Mala[edit]

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

No independent coverage and none found. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep According to the German National Library, which is clearly independent coverage, Mala is the author of 109 books and co-author of 11 others. A simple English Amazon search generated over 40 of them and a Google search on his name recorded over 10,000 hits with dozens of well known national and international booksellers listing his books, so I struggling to understand why he might not be notable. How many books do you have to write to have an article on Wikipedia? Would it help if the article listed a selection of his works? Bermicourt (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I can't find any coverage of him or his work outside of Amazon listings and a Goodreads profile. He doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR either. It's possible that foreign-language sources exist, but my perusal of his website didn't turn up any reviews or other coverage linked. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 22:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Well Mala is German, so you'd expect sources to be in a foreign language. To give just a few examples across a wide spectrum of literature, he's cited in Bormann's Orte des Schreckens (2004), pp. 206 and 276; in Kraft's Keine Lust auf Untergang (2010), pp. x, 6, 155 and 163; in the Spanish journal Delibros (2004), p. 62; in Bekmeier-Feuerhahn et al. (editors) Kulturmanagement und Kulturpolitik (2011), p. 389; the German Jewish Institute's Handbuch Medienerziehung im Kindergarten (1995), p. 189; the German national newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine publication Ein Bücher-Tagebuch (1994), p. 588; and PEN Zentrum Deutschland's PEN Das Autorenlexikon 2015/16. Just how many independent, national and international sources do we need? Bermicourt (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I never said I didn't expect foreign-language sources to exist - I should've been clearer that I just can't browse them as I don't speak German :). What's the nature of the citations there? Are they reviews of his work, profiles of him, academic analyses? If they're about him specifically, they should be cited in the article. As it stands, we can't verify anything in the article because the only reference is the members list of a professional organization that doesn't include any biographical information at all. A better option may be to draftify until those sources are worked into the article itself. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 19:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this mostly unsourced article. Possibly draftify if someone wants to take that on, but get it out of the common space until it has reliable sources to establish notability. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please review significant changes to this article. I have now cited the bulk of the article, added a selection of Mala's works and removed text that is as yet unsourced. Bermicourt (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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's no consensus here to rename the article; any further discussion of the title can take place in an RM. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Dumpson[edit]

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

Seems to be a WP:BLP1E case; she's likely not notable. wizzito | say hello! 14:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think it is mostly a WP:BLP1E case, but it has reached such a wide audience. passing WP:SIGCOV that it has worth keeping. Its been reported on numerous papers in the US and a couple in the UK. Its widely reported on social media, there is even tv programme about the event. I think because it is quite unusual as an event, successfully sueing your trolls on social, that it has historical worth and is worth recording. scope_creepTalk 14:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but I wouldn't object to renaming the page Dumpson v. Ade. pburka (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC and because this does not appear to be WP:BLP1E, including because national coverage of her appears to have begun in 2017, before the lawsuit (e.g. WaPo), she does not appear to have remained low-profile since then (i.e. filing and winning the lawsuit, NYT 2019, CNN 2019, ongoing coverage e.g. NPR 2021), the events are significant and her roles are substantial and well-documented. Also, I would object to renaming the article to the case name because of the volume and depth of reporting about her, both before and after the case. Beccaynr (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has received significant coverage in reliable sources for four years, and the lawsuit she won set the precedent that online harassment can lead to serious financial consequences. Cullen328 (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sufficient in-depth coverage to suggest that this person is of longterm significance. PamD 09:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename As a BLP I would vote delete, the subject is not notable and is only known for one event. Hence, per WP:BLP1E subject does not merit a biographical article. As a legal case, yes it is notable and worthy of coverage. Hence, I would propose rename to Dumpson v. Ade per pburka. WCMemail 09:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I revised and expanded the article to include more sources, including from GScholar and ProQuest. I think additions such as her writing being included as a chapter in the book American Hate: Survivors Speak Out by Arjun Singh Sethi, and her experience noted in the book Culture Warlords: My Journey Into the Dark Web of White Supremacy by Talia Lavin help provide further support for an article about her. Beccaynr (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would say this falls under WP:NOTBLP1E. WestCD (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bacova Junction, Virginia[edit]

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

Likely not a notable community. Newspapers.com results give generic "Jane Doe moved from/is visiting Bacova Junction" results and stuff about people from there and directions and places which use it as a waypoint. wizzito | say hello! 13:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 13:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 13:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "At the time of this photo, the nearby village of Bacova Junction was known as Gros, Virginia." according to Oxendine, Margo (2003). Bath County, Virginia. Arcadia Publishing. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-7385-1577-9. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above source, establishing as a notable community. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable locality.₪ Encyclopædius 19:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Expanded content is just enough to squeak by. –dlthewave ☎ 16:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is the article needs editing and splitting out, not deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths due to COVID-19[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of deaths due to COVID-19 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is going to be a weird one so please stay with me. This list as it currently stands is 299,997 bytes and has no citations because there are more entries than the per page template limit of MediaWiki. The consensus on this article's talk page has repeatedly been in favor of not splitting it due to the sort functions. We are in a bind because it is impossible to verify the information, violating BLP, which covers recent deaths, while leaving it in its current state.

Further, COVID-19 was the third leading cause of death in the United States in 2020. There is a good reason that List of deaths due to Heart Disease, List of deaths due to Stroke, and List of deaths due to Lung Cancer are all red links. The lists that they create would be too broad to be encyclopedic and are better suited for a database. I think that this list has crossed over from being a unique collection of information that is useful in an encyclopedia to a tragically common cause of death. Lugnuts said something to this effect in their deletion statement just over a year ago and it has only gotten worse.

The article does not show that this list is notable as a stand alone list. Doing some BEFORE I noticed that there is quite a bit of discussion of the number of deaths and trying to calculate the excess mortality over the past 2 years, but very little attempt to exhaustively list the people who have died of COVID-19. There are some listicles of 20 or so celebs that died but no in depth discussion of the phenomenon or anything as wide reaching as this. Maybe in a few years when the history of the pandemic is being written we can return to this subject, but right not, no.

I think the article should be deleted and replaced with a category. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Split (by year) per WP:PAPER. No need to resort to the delete option, leaving us only with a category, which is not sortable or easy to navigate. Havradim (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Strictly speaking, we don't need citations here, because only blue-linked individuals are included, and their articles should already include the citations for cause of death. Sometimes, footnotes are clutter; for example, List of people by Erdős number gets by just fine without them, because any given item is supported by the contents of the linked biography page and/or a check with a standard database. I'm also not convinced that splitting by year would be such a great detriment to sortability in practice. XOR'easter (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that article's approach is problematic and does not follow policy -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But what policy is actually being violated? Verification requiring one extra mouse click is not the same as information being unverifiable. And I don't think that the comparison to heart disease, stroke, or lung cancer is actually illustrative. None of those originated in 2019. XOR'easter (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the better reason would be List of deaths due to heart disease, List of death due to stroke, and List of deaths due to lung cancer as red links provided the MOS formatting. Just providing some clarity. – The Grid (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I pointed out last year when it was nominated for the third time, reliable sources cover this, and everyone on the list is a blue link to their own article. Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic exist. We can divide the list into nations or continents if need be. As for the examples List of deaths from coronary thrombosis exists. Category:Deaths from lung cancer but isn't made into a list because it has 2,276 entries. We do have various lists for types of death found at Lists of people by cause of death. Dream Focus 22:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not rely on an OTHERSTUFF argument here; List of deaths from coronary thrombosis should potentially be AFD-ed depending on what is said here. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I did not make the argument that other stuff exist. I was responding to the nominator mentioning these articles that they claim didn't exist and what they claimed was the reason why. Dream Focus 00:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons listed by User:Dream Focus above, or Split (by year) per reasons listed by User:Havradim above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed with comments above that the lack of inline citations isn't a problem here as all entries are blue-linked. I disagree with the nominator's comparison to lung cancer, heart disease, and stroke. Coronavirus is a (very long) event and there will hopefully become a time when nobody is dying of it. It's very unlikely we will eradicate all deaths by stroke for example. Thus eventually there will be a finite scope for this list. NemesisAT (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; however, in a similar vein to what User:Havradim said, it should probably be split. I would suggest going even further than what User:Havradim said, however, in that it should not only be split by year, but by month. There should be a page called "List of deaths due to COVID-19", but instead of containing deaths on that page, it should have a section header for 2020, for 2021 (and later for 2022 and beyond, as will likely be the case; my best guess is it will be around 2023 or 2024 when the pandemic really starts to peter out), and under each section header, links to pages for each month (say, COVID-19 deaths in January 2020) or for a range of months (COVID-19 deaths in January-March 2020). The list provided by this page, even if or when split in the manner just described, should be kept because it provides an excellent reference of which countries had notable persons dying at what times. As sample persons, the deaths of these notable persons can provide insight into which regions were being hit at what times, and of course, since these are notable persons in themselves, provide an understanding of the wide range of people who were affected by and died from COVID-19. AMBtheMarylander2102 (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet even the basic sourcing needs WP:LISTVERIFY - WP:MINREF ....Moxy- 04:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read the last sentence in that? It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, does not require an inline citation. You can click on any entry and verify the information that easily, the infobox showing when they died and the cause of death being covid. Dream Focus 05:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should read over WP:BDP...major bio concern considering cause of death by COVID for those that refuse vaccinations are being denied death benefits. Serious legal stuff here... we should follow the basics on sourcing. Don't make our readers run around and hunt down sources.... that would be the opposite of enabling research and ease of access.Moxy- 00:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment List of COVID-19 deaths in South Africa should be deleted. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 05:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominated for AfD: WP:Articles for deletion/List of COVID-19 deaths in South Africa. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons referred to by Paintspot Infez. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 05:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Split by year, for reasons given by Havradim above CC0Rider (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and split by year, per Havradim and CC0Rider -- The Anome (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The splitting proposal is being discussed at Talk:List of deaths due to COVID-19#Split by year?. – Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Green, Virginia[edit]

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

I highly doubt this is a community. Newspapers.com only gets results about train timetables and stuff about the school and a nearby Cedar Green Road. (And no, having a place on NRHP doesn't mean automatic notability.) wizzito | say hello! 13:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to List of music styles. ✗plicit 14:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of popular music genres[edit]

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

It looks like the page is a copy-paste of List of music styles and Popular music. About 90% of the list is copied from List of music styles (mainly because both pages use AllMusic as reference, the only reference of the lists). And all of the reference (the popular music genres) is copied from Popular music. So i'm nominating this page for deletion because:

1. Almost all of the list points are copied from List of music styles

2. The headline is copied from Popular music (and the references)

3. The list is derived from AllMusic, which is the only reference for the list. Does Wikipedia allow single-reference statements?

4. The page is not well managed. Some anonymous editors put some genres into wrong section, like putting ragga into hip hop and disco into R&B and Soul.

5. The title "list of popular music genres" is ambiguous, like, is there an exact measurement about how popular the genres like pop, jazz, and hip-hop? Also, how can you know that genres like vaporwave is not popular? There's no exact measurement of how popular and unpopular a music genre. GogoLion (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Partially supporting, as I more prefer a merge here. I also wrote the same doubts about this a year ago: Talk:List of popular music genres#Potential merge with list of music styles. Initially, this page should gather all genres except of classical, traditional folk, religious, and maybe experimental/avantgarde. So that is literally should copy the biggest part of the list of music styles. So it just feels excessive to exist separately like this. On #3: it's not really a complete copy of Allmusic after all. People have been adding links here for a long time, so first of all we should move everything from one list to the other, and then just place a redirect here. Solidest (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've finished moving everything from the popular to the general list. So now this is a de facto shortened copy of List of music styles. Thus it can be removed or replaced with a redirect. Solidest (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanes Entertainment Team[edit]

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

Non-notable group of team employees, fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Entirely sourced from primary and unreliable sources. PROD removed without comment by article creator. Ravenswing 13:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Nakas[edit]

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

Actor with only three acting credits (according to the Swedish Film Database which seems reliable), none of them major roles and as such failing WP:NACTOR (also has some songwriting credits, equally minor). WP:GNG is not met either as far as I can tell; I included in my BEFORE a search of Swedish newspapers where there are a few mentions but no significant coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of sex in the media[edit]

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

Unspeakably vague and haphazard WP:NOTESSAY violation that sounds like it was written decades ago despite being created in 2017 (why is there no information on LGBT people at all? Why is BDSM lumped together with rape and genital mutilation as “violent sexual content”? Why is the best statistic on porn they could find from 2006?). Seemingly just a bad copy of the already very shabby effects of pornography article. Was this created for a college project? Needs WP:TNT via draftification at the absolute minimum. Dronebogus (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deidre McCalla[edit]

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

BLP without decent references or evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author Keep The nomination is refuted by the current status of the article. I don't really understand why this article was tagged. Chubbles (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • An AllMusic bio and a short interview aren't quite enough to establish notability or base a BLP on, I'd say. Lennart97 (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is fair, though not the case made by the nominator. McCalla meets WP:MUSIC bullet 5 (several releases on labels such as Olivia), and she additionally is discussed in a number of academic books and articles about lesbian music (try "deidre mccalla" in Google Books). Chubbles (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • GNG generally needs to be met even if some criterion of an SNG is met, so if the coverage is indeed out there, I'd suggest adding it to the article and it would be an easy keep :) Lennart97 (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not so; if GNG needed to be met, the SNG would not be necessary. This example is actually a great illustration of why the SNGs can be so important, such as for a niche musician from a pre-Internet era whose importance may not be obvious from casual Googling. The SNG (in combination with WP:V, though verifiability is not at issue here - her discography is trivial to verify) helps improve our encyclopedic reach in a way that a GNG-only standard might not (though she may meet the GNG as well; I see, for instance, that she was the subject of a profile in Hot Wire magazine in 1988, but I do not have access to a university library that would be able to grant me access to that title, at this time). Chubbles (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • NMUSIC states that a musician may be notable if one of the criteria is met, in the end it should still come down to coverage. If all the biographical info currently in the article can be sourced to more reliable sources than an Allmusic bio and an interview, that would make a pretty strong case combined with NMUSIC#5. That's just my opinion anyway, I'd definitely like to hear what others have to say on the subject. Lennart97 (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this article may meet WP:MUSICBIO, specifically criterion #5 may have been met, due to being on record label Olivia Records. which has its own Wiki page and may mean that it is a major label. Chelokabob (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick search on google books [23] seems to find plenty of sources. Obviously the stub needs work but it appears WP:GNG is met by significant coverage in reliable sources. WCMemail 08:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A BLP needs actual references. The only one here is dead. Rathfelder (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't matter if there's an archived version available, and there is, so I added it. Consider doing so yourself next time using the Wayback machine. What does matter of course is the quality of the source. Lennart97 (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on newly provided book citations by User:Wee Curry Monster. Chelokabob (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smoothcomp[edit]

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

Not enough reliable sources with in-depth coverage for WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete There doesn't seem to be significant independent coverage in reliable sources. The article's three sources are from Smoothcomp (obviously not independent), BJJ Scandinavia, and BJJ Eastern Europe. I'm not sure if the two BJJ organizations are truly independent of each other or just branches of the IBJJF, however they both allow outside contributors to write articles and I question the editorial independence of the people who wrote those articles. The Scandinavia BJJ article consists almost entirely of a list of features, starting with "a beautiful user interface" and continuing to describe "the "business modell (sic) is very easy" and costs only "1 euro per contender" plus "payment is supported by Stripe and Paypal (that charges an amount of 2-3% per transaction)". The article also says where and how to get a support ticket and describes one feature that is fast because it is "using our unique template system". Sounds like a published press release to me. The BJJ Eastern Europe article has less information but it too sounds like a press release--like describing the "Extensive organizational skills of the team", the "Years of experience have helped shape this software into a must have" and "make this app a no brainer for every jiu jiteiro". I definitely would need to see better sources to say this had the coverage to be WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Struck the leaning part of my vote. I did a more extensive search for sources, admittedly in English, and still was unable to find enough coverage to convince me that WP:GNG or WP:NORG is met. Papaursa (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unanimous consensus to keep, including the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 All Japan Artistic Gymnastics Championships[edit]

2021 All Japan Artistic Gymnastics Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unreliable sources, WP:TOOSOON Leomk (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 07:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just copy the link to Google search and click "translate this page" at the result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep sources are not "independent of the subject" Leomk (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 06:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The nominator has !voted "weak keep". I'm not entirely sure what happened here, but an article currently citing unreliable sources is not a deletion rationale, and an article on an ongoing sporting event is hardly "too soon" (even if it is poorly written and appears to refer twn December 2021 in the past tense). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusing reasons So when the article is nominated in delation, I asked for the reasons. The nominator first said that lots of emptiness, even though I just created it for one day and filled the contents whenever I have free time. I understand that too soon means that it looks like a draft, but despite that most of its contents are no longer empty for days, the too soon reminder still exists. The next reason is unreliable sources and when I explained that this is a Japanese gymnastics competition and the sources are from the official website of Japan Gymnastics Association, where all information about the tournament, i.e. qualification criteria, schedule, ticket information, broadcasting, results... The nominator said that they were okay but “unless a japanese speaking person comes, we cann't be sure”. And until a few days later he added that the sources are not “independent sources” to the subjects. I mean, after reading what it is, I get that third-party sources are encouraged to prevent biased and personal opinions of editors, but should such reason be announced from the beginning? I asked just a few hours after the article had been nominated for delation and this is day 5 or 6? I mean come on, give us all the mistakes needed to be corrected so we can fixed it, not confusing, unclear reasons! We editors don’t know all the rules but when you nominated an article for delation, you should have given specific and comprehensive reasons for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Leomk0403: You voted weak keep, does that mean you are withdrawing your nomination? Jumpytoo Talk 21:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not yet, waiting for reliable sources to come in, some that i can read. Leomk (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 02:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There’s no rule that requires the sources to be in English. I already said the article was about a gymnastics tournament in Japan and the sources were from the official website of Japan Gymnastics Association. What can be more reliable than that? The fact that you don’t understand Japanese is not the reason to mark my sources as unreliable. You can just copy the links to google and click on the Translate this page right next to the results and it will translate to the language that you desire. There are many ways to understand articles not writing in your languages without taking too much time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why on Earth was this relisted? The only person calling for deletion (but hedging his bets) is doing so for the obviously invalid reason that he, like me, cannot read Japanese. Phil Bridger (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Platinumb Heart Open. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Platinumb Heart Beating[edit]

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

No indication that this meets WP:NALBUM Gbawden (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Clarkcj12 (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua-Aston Hospitality[edit]

Aqua-Aston Hospitality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable arm of a notable parent company, there is no meaningful or in depth coverage of AAH, only it's parent and should be redirect, but was contested by a legacy admin. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Poorly-referenced article, but not un-notable. WP:BEFORE in Google news section yields some useful sources:
Aqua-Aston celebrates 70 years in Hawaii - Travel Weekly, 4 January 2019
Aqua-Aston Hospitality completes $6.7M sustainability update to Maui hotel - Hotel Management, 9 November 2017
Hawaii-based hotel companies rebrand as Aqua-Aston Hospitality - The Business Journals, 17 August 2017
Aqua-Aston Hospitality launches new operations protocols - Hotel Managment, 9 July 2017
Aqua-Aston unveils Residences at Waikiki Beach Tower - Travel Weekly, 24 March 2018
I didn't go any deeper but I believe there's more than just these five. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I don’t get, the first you linked doesn’t meet SIGCOV, the second reads like an announcement. If SIGCOV isn’t met than arm isn’t eligible for a standalone. Celestina007 (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guess I am the "legacy admin", whatever that is supposed to imply. The company in question has existed since 1948, yet has only been owned by Marriot for the last three years. They were part of ResortQuest for much longer than that. How Marriot is a valid redir target to that parent beggers the imagination. In any event, the company is known as a "significant regional operator" and gains recent notice for their ecological efforts. They are constantly in the news in the Star-Advertizer, although paywalled. Coverage is not always positive! Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep taken as a whole (even if some of the provided sources appear to be just public announcements of corporate actions), there appears to be enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:NCORP. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], and on I could go. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please - could you point to something that doesn't rely on a company announcements? Here are the headlines for those articles for those editors that cannot access them. For any that can, clearly the references fail NCORP:
"Aqua Hotels to offer stock ownership plan to workers", "Aqua Hotels offers new amenities", "Coconut Plaza is closing for renovation", "Aqua Hotels selects new CEO", "Aqua Hotels to manage Hotel Lana'i", "Aqua Hotels owners institute ESOP", "Aqua Hotels to run Hilton Kanua'i resort", "Aqua Hotels' 'No Commitments' program eases wedding planning". HighKing++ 11:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The company appears to be notable, given the availability of sources on the topic both positive and negative [1][2]. As Maury Markowitz has mentioned, coverage is not always positive. [3][4][5][6][7]. Mugimeshi (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I worked for this company around 2014, and I'm sure they are notable. They are known as a hotel management brand throughout the state of Hawaii, and they have some reach in other areas as well. I am not surprised by the "Labor Disputes" though, it was not a great place to work. Long hours, stressed employees, high turnover, bad management. So this section is good to have. When I worked there, there was no union. Many people quit within 1 year. If they are still as busy as they were they won't have the time to focus on Wikipedia, but the article could occasionally be vandalized or deleted by former employees who are still burnt. Spektred (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lots of talk by the Keep !votes above about "coverage" and "availability of sources" and whether the sources contain negative news. There's a simple method to check notabiliy for companies Since it is a company, the topic must meet WP:NCORP criteria. NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc.
As far as I can see, none of the references in the article meet the criteria. There are *all* based on either announcements by the company, or mentions-in-passing with no in-depth coverage about the company. I am unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria. If somebody wants a detailed breakdown of any particular reference and why it fails NCORP, link it underneath here but otherwise, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 11:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that they rebranded a few times. As the article eludes to, first it was "Aqua Hotels & Resorts", then "Aqua Hospitality", then "Aqua-Aston Hospitality" after the merge with Aston Hotels. But it's all the same business. This could be the reason why finding sources might seem a little scarce. I know about the rebrands because I had a direct connection to this company at one time, but there are sources online that confirm all this as well. Spektred (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nonsense, just another bunch of regurgitated press releases and company announcements. Am I missing something? Can you explain how exactly those sources "satisfy the notability criteria"??? Where is the in-depth information on the company to include analysis/opinion/etc by a person unaffiliated with the topic company???
Clearly the company exists, clearly it has a well-oiled marketing department, clearly it is mentioned in lots of articles, but this does not automatically translate into notability. HighKing++ 15:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gafin v Kavin[edit]

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

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. It is based only on primary sources. Google shows nothing relevant except Wikipedia and it's mirrors, and other primary sources. Also tried to find sources relating to Denise Kavin, but the results were for the S v Kavin case for the initial murder charges. It also reads concerningly like it was copied from a legal textbook or handbook. Mako001 (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leveriza Street[edit]

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

Likely not meeting notability. There are only two sources: [45] and [46] (the latter is a Flickr URL), thus Leveriza Street fails WP:GEOROAD. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Approximation#Typography. And/or Inequality (mathematics). Sandstein 19:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Approximate inequality[edit]

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

There is no such thing as an approximate inequality, at least in the sense used here. The reference given do not support this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Going to agree with Delete, with the caveat that I do think an article discussing these symbols (with a better name) would be a good idea. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep well known concept recognized formally in all of Unicode, HTML, LaTeX; added sources and sorted stub; explicited definition. fgnievinski (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article is delete, I think may be able to redirect to List of mathematical symbols by subject#Arithmetic comparison.--SilverMatsu (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or alternatively merge (back) to Inequality (mathematics). The article was originally split off from Inequality (mathematics), and the first versions of the article didn't really match the article's title. (See the comments by myself and others at Talk:Approximate inequality § Title of this page.) Parts of the article have been merged back since this deletion discussion was started. The parts that were not merged back have been cleaned up significantly by Fgnievinski (thanks!), giving the article a new focus (and making the article's content and its title a better match), and should be kept somewhere. —Tea2min (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The new citations do not establish notability for the concept of approximate inequality. They establish that a) a symbol exists, and b) the symbol has ever been used. I still have no idea whether the article is correct that the symbol is typically used to mean approximate inequality. No evidence has been presented that either the concept or the symbol is notable. Danstronger (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the discussion above. I don't think this warrants a separate article. Better incorporated back into the Inequality (mathematics) article. PatrickR2 (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I am still recommending to delete the page, and instead merge the contents into the Approximation article. This seems a better place for this information. As already discussed, the information in question is not a precise mathematical concept, and is more used as a convenient informal shorthand when discussing relations between quantities in other sciences for example. That seems to match well with what's already at the Approximation page. PatrickR2 (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed the usage is more common in engineering and science than in mathematics. Mathematicians seem to have difficulty even with the more common "much greater than" operator, ≫, reason why it had also been split off originally. Approximation#Typography seems a reasonable destination. fgnievinski (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Blazzard[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Page has been tagged for more refs since August but none have been added. The only ref and a BEFORE search shows that he was quoted by Ernest Hemingway describing an action against the Siegfried Line in WWII and that is repeated in various books about Hemingway, but I don't regard that as sufficient to establish notability, otherwise there's not much available about him. His unreferenced post as Assistant Secretary of State of Arizona doesn't meet WP:NPOL and even if it did that is just a presumption and he still fails due to lack of reliable sources Mztourist (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Single source to a heritage association website fails to demonstrate significant coverage by independent reliable sources. There's a 1970s biography of "James Blazzard and Mary Catherine Jolley", who I think are his parents, by Catherine B. Curtis. According to non-reliable sources (i.e. a genealogy website) Catherine is their daughter (i.e. Howard's sister), making her non-independent. Other sources I could find from Google Books seem to describe him only in relation to a relatively non-notable action that Hemingway witnessed, or are otherwise passing mentions. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Colonel with an impressive string of decorations, including a second-level and two third-level gallantry decorations. I think he meets WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One DSC and those low-tier decorations don't by any stretch satisfy #1 of ANYBIO. You know that would only apply if he had received the MoH, VC etc. Mztourist (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think a third-level decoration is "low-tier" then you know nothing about military decorations! Lower than that would be, but not third-level. Three high-level decorations are, I think, enough to satisfy ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know enough about military decorations to know that a DSC and lesser medals don't satisfy #1 of ANYBIO, whatever your personal criteria may be. Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the purported decoration list is interesting, almost none of them are properly cited. His rank is in no way notable, and he doesn't seem to have held any military positions that would convey notability. Seems like a single event to me. Intothatdarkness 14:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The subject does not appear to even have met the now-depreciated WP:NSOLDIER criteria. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lion Air Group. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Parcel[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG was also speedily deleted earlier Aoyoigian (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Aoyoigian (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No indication of notability, the one source (translated) barely proves that the entity exists never mind giving in-depth coverage JW 1961 Talk 08:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Deleted : The article is being rework from previous version. The article is the support article since Lion Parcel is a division of Lion Air Group aswell. Deleted now means does not give a time from improvement for the article. NaidNdeso (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect To Lion Air Group since this clearly isn't notable. Divisions of companies hardly ever are. Given that it is one though, I'm fine with it being directed to the main article until a time in the future when it's notable. But currently, it's clearly an unnecessary fork of the other article. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article was dubious to begin with, and the material ("environment record) recently added by NaidNdeso has made it a good deal worse. NN, do you have any coi to declare? I'm not surethatevena redirect is justified. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough citations to justify a keep. Chelokabob (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lion Air Group as Adamant1 has suggested. The company surely exists and has an arguably large-scale operation in Indonesia, however I don't think a separate page could be justified. The article's content is spartan as is and has claims that can be seen as advertisement-like, and I'd imagine it would be difficult to expand on it. Best just to just redirect to Lion Air Group. Mugimeshi (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winning Jah [edit]

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

the topic of this article is fully promotional , it Fails Wikipedia policy and Notability ; the topic of this article has been deleted via deletion disscussion several times most recently 2021 , NO evidence of notability , the sources are in conection with the musicians Samat lib (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions Samat lib (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: nothing else found. Got bored of looking. Moving on. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The academic article in International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Studies could be considered original research that is unsuitable for Wikipedia. That's because it only uses sources that are about large genres and geographic regions, and everything about Winning Jah is original and clearly based on the author's personal opinions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 04:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A national honour award + his work is the subject of an academic paper + a platinum album = obviously notable. Promotional content is not by itself a valid reason to delete - AFD is not cleanup. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See above and below for other opinions on the reliability of that award and academic paper. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 04:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520 I was actually referring to the Order of the Niger, which appears to have real status. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Order of the Niger article here at Wikipedia does not list Winning Jah (or his given name Kingsley Eno Osagie) as a winner. That article uses a source ([47]) that lists the winners from the year that Winning Jah apparently won it, and he is not listed there either. The only sources stating that he won the award are the very same unreliable promo sites that have been shot down in this and all previous AfDs on the musician. And even if he did win it I don't think it passes the criterion for "major award" at WP:NMUSICBIO #8, because hardly any of its many "winners" receive any media coverage for doing so. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for those evaluating the significance of the awards in establishing notability for a winner of one of them: As prestigious as it sounds, "Africa Grammy Awards" is the (self-appropriated?) nickname of the Obaland Royal Awards, which are issued by the Obaland Academy which, four years ago, was preparing to give out 60,000 of these awards, according to this article. As pan-African as it sounds, its focal point is apparently Edo State in Nigeria (indeed, awards include "Most played in Benin city", "Most downloaded Reggae in Benin City", "Best Edo state/Diaspora Philanthropist", "Jamaica most played artist in Edo State" , and "Best song of King Ewuare II"), and I gather the event was held only once, in 2018, per this source. Largoplazo (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that Winning Jah has "received over 300 awards", which is not good news about the quality of those awards. Even Quincy Jones has fewer, and his awards happen to be real. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 04:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b International Bureau of Weights and Measures (2006), The International System of Units (SI) (PDF) (8th ed.), ISBN 92-822-2213-6, archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-06-04, retrieved 2021-12-16
  2. ^ [1]
  3. ^ [[2]]
  4. ^ [3]
  5. ^ [4]
  • For what it's worth, see WP:NGRS: The Nigeria WikiProject finds Nairaland generally unreliable for Nigeria-related information.
You cite Leaderhip, but Leadership is also the source I gave above that tells us that these Obaland Awards, themselves not notable, were distributed to 60,000 people, so having received one cannot be construed as a mark of notability; if you disagree that this award was doled out so liberally as stated in that source, then you're finding Leadership to be an unreliable source.
Finally, this archive of this dead link to Economic Confidential claims to be the full list of government awards, including Order of the Niger, for 2010 and 2011, and Winning Jah isn't on it. Largoplazo (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Largoplazo (talk) Economic Confidential [48] is a mere online blog with no Government affiliation or Nigerian authorities endorsement, based in Abuja, probably they couldn't state the long list of all recipients who received Order of the Niger, if a national print news like Leadership Newspaper, Vanguard newspaper published his winnings on a print newspaper to over 200 million Nigerian inhabitants and state authorities didn't question it or flashed as a fake news, means he actually received one. The second source from a Wordpress blog (Ogala) also referred getting his source from Economic Confidential blog [49], We can't compare private blogs to a National print newspaper. For example Victor Uwaifo, Yinka Ayefele and others weren't listed in this poor unreliable blogs, but they all received this recognitions.NOTICE501 (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Economic Confidential listed 365 award recipients, and Vanguard reported 364 so, allowing the possibility of a typo or miscount, either
  • you continue to suspect that the Economic Confidential post lists only a subset of all recipients of the award, which means that there are more than 365 of them, in which case you're questioning the reliability of Vanguard, one of the publications you're relying on for the OON claim;
  • you trust Vanguard, in which case your suggestion that there were more recipients than were included the Economic Confidential post is erroneous, or
  • Economic Confidential swapped non-recipients for recipients in its list so it could end up with the correct number in the list, but, regardless of what we might generally feel about the reliability of this source, why in the world would they go out of their way to do that?
Since you've affirmed your trust in Leadership, that means you must trust them to be correct that the Obaland Awards were given to 60,000 people in one year, which completely eliminates any possibility of considering those awards to contribute to a finding of notability.
The bottom line is that there are inconsistencies among sources, but those inconsistencies either raise doubt about some of the information found in the sources you say are reliable. or else undermine their value in establishing Winning Jah's notability. Largoplazo (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, Business News reported two numbers, 335 and 355. It looks like a lot of typos going around. But all of these numbers are less than the 365 actually on the list that you've disputed, so your conjecture that that list is incomplete still seems flawed. By the way, I was trying to understand why the Economic Confidential said its list covered both 2010 and 2011. Business News explains that "The SGF [sic] [Secretary to the Federal Government] explained that the award ceremony could not hold in 2010 because of preparations for the 2011 general elections. Although the combined awards shot up the total number of awardees for this year, the number wasn’t extraordinary as government also had two years to plan." Largoplazo (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If an author fails to comply with paid editing policies, their COI/paid created pages are usually deleted. Also, it seems the author has added award section to bypass WP:MUSICBIO. (please see current revision vs old revision). Author has admitted that Winning Jah hasn't/has never received 300 uncertain/non-notable awards. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentTheBirdsShedTears Like i have always declared in good faith here on Wikipedia that i don't have any affiliations or interest in COI/paid articles. I received a notice on my users page to participate in this Debate about an article i created, which i honored the notification, does that proof a COI? no editor would like to be a failure as article created got nomination for deletion. I needed to join Wikipedians in searching sources, i am fully aware that Wikipedia is not a promotional page for artists or companies. NOTICE501 (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I was willing to give this article and its author the benefit of the doubt that willingness faded today when I saw the date in the Obaland article was modified today. It is surely not a coincidence and leads me to believe NOTICE501 is in contact with the journalist Lucky Omosigho, trying to beef up the source to support the claims in the article. Oh look! NOTICE501 created a draft about this person! Earlier I had been going through Draft:2020 APCN Humanitarian Awards, Draft:Enorecords LLC, Evi Edna Ogholi, Draft:Jossy Joe, Veronica Rudian, King Wadada - these are performers related to Winning Jah's company Enorecords, and the awards are mentioned in both the Winning Jah and Evi Edna Ogholi articles, trying to give weight to an award that Jah's own video of the award ceremony shows the tiny number of attendees compared to the number of recipients - something fishy here. The judge of Jah's 2020 award is signed to his record label?? I note NOTICE501's edits today, removing Order of the Niger from the lead, removing my citation needed tag from the platinum record claim, and reducing '300 awards' down to 'multiple awards' which can of course mean any number of awards more than one. The word 'bogus' comes to mind. I am sure this is COI and UPE, and I question the accuracy of most of the claims in the article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The author in question is also the creator of Obaland Magazine edited by Lucky Omosigho. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well! The link you provided to "Jah's own video of the award ceremony" now displays, in lieu of a video, the statement "This video isn't available anymore". Largoplazo (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentTheBirdsShedTears I am a Christian and i also have a positive way of reasoning. I normally ask myself (if my son gathers wrong information from Wikipedia for his school activities and fails his exams, who get's the blame? I guess Wikipedia article contributors, including me certainly. Anytime i am writing an article, my 16 years old son is always seated close to me. I haven't contacted any of the persons connected to this articles. If Obaland Magazine editors updated their website recently, has nothing to do with my created article. If anyone keeps suspecting my edit, that means a whole heartbreak to me, I am not a journalist or a social media personality than gathering information from Google to write short articles on Wikipedia if necessary, because I'm yet to qualify as a senior editor i keep looking forward to write the article without COI ideas. I swear to my living God to have nothing in common with all this names or News media you have mentioned. Everyone on this forum has their opinion, i will prefer being called a Satan to COI editor or Liar. My edits was based on various notice received on the article and i wanted to write it better. Other drafts were yet to be completed for submission, I haven't got that whole time to do so, due to my family issues and my hospital work to handle , where i get my monthly stipends. I prefer not getting heart problem from a voluntary work on Wikipedia . I am not in anyway connected to this articles subjects, nobody paid a dollar or penny for the stress of this articles in question. It won't be correct accepting a COI to please anybody when payments of any kind wasn't involved, wrong. I wasn't the first editor to write about Winning Jah on Wikipedia.org, his article had been written on other Wikipedia articles by other Admins and users, which also could be translated to English [50],

[51], [52],[53] NOTICE501 (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional commentary on the presented sources might be helpful in ascertaining a clear consensus on whether the topic meets relevant notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per DOOMSDAYER520 and Curb Safe Charmer. Also repeated recreation after AfD and SALT is WP:GAMENAME.-KH-1 (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Curb Safe Charmer. I would also suggest starting a discussion on COIN. – The Grid (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Curb Safe Charmer. It's probably best to SALT the name space as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt — I’m literally tired of seeing this article re-incarnate. Furthermore the creator of the article should be taken to ANI as a WP:NOTHERE SPA. Celestina007 (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We agree that this should not be an article, but views are divided about whether this term is is widely used enough to merit a disambiguation to pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia (as it currently is), or whether it should be deleted, merged or redirected anywhere.

In terms of the arguments presented, I find the WP:DUE argument for deletion compelling: it is undisputed in this discussion that this term is an euphemism intended to help legitimize pedophilia and related practices, which is at best a very WP:FRINGE view, and needs to be treated with the appropriate caution by Wikipedians. This does not rule out that Wikipedia covers the term in one way or another (such as a dab or redirect), but this should not be done without a discussion that addresses the issue of how this should be done without giving fringe views undue prominence. Because the "keep" opinions here by and large do not address this aspect of the discussion, I give them less weight. Sandstein 12:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor-attracted person[edit]

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

I cannot find any real sourcing for this term, outside of the website of the Prostasia Foundation, whose main activity is to try to legalize child porn, and a really fringe book. This seems like a fringe term being turned into a DAB. And, given the lack of scholarship that actually uses this term, it also appears to be WP:OR-y. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopaedic article. It probably belongs in wiktionary. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's there already under MAP and the text looks a lot like this page. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a disambiguation page. It hardly makes sense to judge it according to the standards of notability and coverage you'd need to write a whole article, because that's not what it's trying to do. And, as Eastmain pointed out, it's a topic of current academic research, which is a bit more than just a "dictionary word". I can think of another recent case (in this one, the academic was put on leave). -- asilvering (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the sourcing is strong enough for a simple disambig, at least. The reason it’s hard to find good sources talking about this is mainly because a search for “minor attracted person” gets you a face full of rightwing rage pieces about the aforementioned professor (who is non-binary on top of being “liberal acadamea”, two things OANN and co love to demonize). Dronebogus (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I would take that 4W.pub site’s analysis with a grain (or 10) of salt considering a glance at their front page reveals some very… TERFy sounding headlines. Dronebogus (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair, that’s apparently core to the website (which is also apparently CC-BY-SA if there are decent bits that would fit in an article somewhere). Though it isn’t as if this is a random radfem site saying this, other comprehensive sites seem to endorse similar conclusions, as does the conservative Sohrab Ahmari. I could give my own analysis of the group, but I tend to find the same things that the sites with very different ideologies have. This doesn’t seem to be a fringe radfem take. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wouldn’t believe conservatives on this either (they’re basically the same as RadFems in this area— i.e. intensely bigoted against sex workers, pornographers, and trans/genderqueer people) but the first source you provided is quite good (and nauseating) in its analysis. But this is about the legitimacy of MAP as a term and not about whether prostasia are basically just NAMBLA-lite. Dronebogus (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't think this page adds much encyclopedic value to really anything. As Imaginatorium, this would be better suited to Wiktionary and not Wikipedia. BakuFromAus (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Academic sources using this term suggest a high specialized, nuanced meaning and intention behind this term. This nuance and intention is not reflected by it's use as a disambiguation page, which seems an inappropriate place for it. Rather, it may be more suitable being incorporated into the body text of larger articles in this topic area, where the deeper intended meaning can be explored.
As a bit of a follow-up, I think all the options should be considered when deciding what to do with this article:
  1. Leave it exactly as it is
  2. Expand it into an true article and not a disamb
  3. Delete it and do nothing else
  4. Delete it and add information about it to a relevant subject page
Number 1 seems to be the worst idea and it doesn't sound like anyone agrees with it. Number 2 I don't feel is appropriate for the aforementioned issue that it's a specialized term and not what I would describe as an "article subject." But if we go that way, this article has to go into hardcore lockdown, just like the pedophilia article, due to the high risk of vandalism and senstive subject matter. Number 3 might be acceptable if it's shown that the term's academic mention is trivial and ultraspecific to one author, whereas Number 4 seems best if academic coverage is deeper.Legitimus (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable topic per WP:GNG based on sources provided by Eastmain and Pokelova. The sources should be used to expand the page into a full article describing the term rather than just a DAB page. Current article content does not determine notability. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: While the page seems unusual, "minor-attracted persons" is an actual term that is used by some people. Philosophy2 (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Most of the sources listed above are either poor or fleeting coverage related to a recent controversy involving an academic. This is, as it were, a 'rebranding' euphemism which is very much non-mainstream and should not be legitimized with its own article per WP:DUE. As a disambiguation page, it seems unnecessary and confusing. While it could in a literal reading technically refer to any of those three things, this seems to mainly be a term for the one that is the paraphilia as listed in the DSM-5, which is pedophilia. We can just delete this. Crossroads -talk- 07:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just a euphemism for paedophile. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A "minor-attracted person" is just a time-consuming way to say the noun "pedophile", and Wikipedia already has an article on pedophilia. It can be added to the Pedophilia article as a ==Slang== section for contemporary terminology meaning pedophile. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chronophilia which covers the same subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chronophilia is a page for a different term which covers the same topic. If the answer ends up being redirect, I'd suggest List_of_paraphilias#M along with a minor merge. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pedophilia as the common use for this phrase is a euphemism for that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This term is a euphemism for pedophile used by a small minority to destigmatize pedophilia and those afflicted. Pedophilic disorder is still listed in the DSM-5 as a subset of paraphilic disorders. Paraphilia or Chronophilia are more accurate and common use umbrella terms. Per WP:UNDUE there is good reason to simply delete this article. Wreckoning90125 (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment I doesn't seem to be a real disambiguation page. It's a page about a term and sub-categories that fall under that term. So I removed the disambiguation template from the article. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm reverting this change - judging by the comments here there's no consensus for that change. Some arguments in response to this AfD depend on it being a disambiguation page, so making this edit during the AfD is problematic. If the AfD ends in keep or no consensus it might be time to revisit the question, but again, probably not unilaterally, as this looks contentious. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It's a dab for three potential redirects, so I evaluate this under WP:R#CRD rather than WP:GNG. Euphemism or not (FWIW, I consider it to be one), the term is out now in the wilderness of academic and general public discourse. The Google Scholar search results appear sufficient to meet WP:R#KEEP. –Austronesier (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The arguments by Legitimus are very convincing. Acidsetback (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Oh, please. Speedied. Bishonen | tålk 20:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of flippant, vulgar and titillating proper names[edit]

List of flippant, vulgar and titillating proper names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List with subjective inclusion criteria. Additionally (and related) it's not clear why "flippant, vulgar and titillating proper names" should be considered together as a group. (t · c) buidhe 04:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cultivate. They're together as a group because whether or not a great many of them is humourous is debatable, and for the beholder; but as long as you have sufficient understanding, they're captured by the given descriptor.
The gauntlet has already been run on this, with List of unusual place names, List of chemical compounds with unusual names, List of unusual biological names, & the like. Those individual Talk-pages relate interesting stories on that.
Of course you can gatekeep on the sufficiency of 'unusualness' to go nuts trying to hunt them out of this database, but for some reason I don't notice you doing that.
Like it or not people will come to Wikipedia looking for lists of funny and absurd-sounding names, or if there's more along with the bizarre or ridiculous one they just found out about. There's no policy and no rule against bringing our aid to satisfy that curiousity. Doin' more for the world there & just for having-a-good-time than all these friggin' lists of episodes cruft. SAMBLAman (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article Place names considered unusual actually has decent sources for most of the content with place names that have legitimately attracted attention in reliable sources. This list seems to be almost 100% original research, not citing sources for the proper names being considered "flippant, vulgar and titillating". (t · c) buidhe 05:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Calling for better sources isn't a deletion argument, it's a quality improvement suggestion. Since you see a related article already has them, just proceed in sharing them across: WP:SODOIT. And how much do you really need a source to be sure that Wankers Corner is titillating any more than to be sure that baseball is a sport? The two articles are of course of distinct scope; each broader than the other as to numerous criteria. I don't see a certification of things being 'unusual' in that other article to any greater degree than this one has been proved to not keep to the standard of being 'titillating' or 'vulgar' or 'flippant'. There is no certifying body as to 'unusual', nor is there as to these other things. SAMBLAman (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parkchester/Van Nest station (Metro-North)[edit]

Parkchester/Van Nest station (Metro-North) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not seeing significant coverage of this proposed station in reliable sources. It is likely to be notable if built but I don't see the notability at the moment. Therefore I propose a redirect to Penn Station Access where this topic is already discussed. (t · c) buidhe 04:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Added a few sources that I found in a few minutes of searching. There should be enough information between the MTA and NYC government website to fill out this article in due time. SounderBruce 05:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The NYT and amny sources just mention the station in passing, therefore they are not counted for notability. I can't check the bizjournals source because of the paywall. I don't think the NYC government or MTA are independent sources when considering notability for the topic. (t · c) buidhe 05:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) suggests, there is enough attributable information on the station. (With the likelihood there'll much more to follow).Djflem (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wouldn't a tophat merge template and discussion on article talk page been appropriate place for this redirect discussion? Djflem (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect discussions are appropriate at AfD. Merge is also an option in any AfD close. (t · c) buidhe 07:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is a possible outcome AFD discussions. But this a proposal to redirect to Penn Station Access, which should have been made at the article page. Djflem (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the subject is likely to be notable in the future, keeping the article will help future editors add new information when it becomes available. I don't see any point in deleting the article only for it to be recreated later. Even if the station is cancelled, the cancellation may attract enough coverage to establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is coverage in reliable local sources, e.g. City Limits, that talk about the station specifically rather than in passing. While I do concede that MTA/NYC.gov sources aren't valid for proving notability, these do provide enough detail to make the article slightly more substantive than a redirect.
    Also, I wonder why Co-op City station and Morris Park station (Metro-North) were not also nominated. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (edit conflict) I also found [54] [55] [56] [57] [58], and that's just a sampling of the coverage out there, there's plenty more as well. There's more than enough coverage of this station, and the others, to establish notability, even though they haven't opened yet. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per above comments. Bidding is apparently under way, and the receipt of a FONSI (which occurred this September) is typically shortly before construction begins. Also note that all four Penn Station Access stations had historical predecessors about which information is available. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Grove, Washington[edit]

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

The current grain elevator beside the tracks replaced an older one alongside two long warehouse-type buildings, but other than that the song remains the same: it's another rail shipping point elevated to a town by various unwary readers who didn't look at the map to see that there's nothing much there. Since nobody is apparently named "Valley Grove", searching was more practical, but I turned up nothing, including a whole series of false hits in census publications due to juxtaposition. Mangoe (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - GNIS spam. No evidence of legal recognition through e.g., incorporation. A post office is not evidence of legal recognition of a population community as these can be literally anywhere, even mobile, and are (and were) often just co-located inside stores and stations that need not be part of any community. The post office existed for all of ten years, which is about the lifetime of a store, so I would suggest this as the most likely explanation. No evidence of a WP:GNG pass either.
Mangoe's work on these GNIS stubs is commendable (this is one of possibly hundreds of these articles they have had to do this work on), but frankly it should be unnecessary, because the fact that these is literally nothing to write about this place, and the article is essentially a directory-listing, should be reason enough to delete it. FOARP (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Whitman County, Washington. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whitman, Washington[edit]

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

Railroad siding: check; grain elevator: check; nothing else in the vicinity in old topos and aerials: check. The station (for that is all it appears to have been) is a short ways west of the Whitman Mission National Historic Site, but other than the obvious honor of the naming there doesn't appear to be any connection between the two in terms of a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 16:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 16:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer If this page is deleted, I encourage the creation of a redirect to Whitman County, Washington, even though Whitman, Washington is in Walla Walla County. --Enos733 (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect - Origin of Washington geographic names confirms that the railway station was named after the nearby Whitman Mission and not vice versa. It has every appearance of being just another grain elevator/loading point that was established when the railroad was built; if there was a community, it's long gone and lacks SIGCOV. I agree with the suggestion to redirect to Whitman County, and procedurally it might be best to delete and then recreate as a redirect since it would be an entirely different topic. –dlthewave ☎ 18:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rene ZZ[edit]

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

This individual appears to fail WP:NBASIC and WP:ENTERTAINER. Out of the sources currently in the article, the only sources that provide more than a trivial mention are primary-source interviews, which do not establish notability in and of themselves because their content is not independent of Ponte himself. I cannot find reliable, independent, secondary sources that significantly cover Ponte in either English or Spanish. As a result, I believe the article subject is non-notable and that the article should be deleted as such. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At AfD, we know how to deal with garage bands, self-promotional autobiographies, semiprofessional footballers and the like. What this discussion shows is that as a community we have no clue or consensus whatsoever about which if any inclusion criteria we want to apply to RNA motifs. This is apparently the parent concept for this sort of thing, but remains a red link as of this writing. There are reasonable arguments on both sides. It's a basic element of biology, which means that we could treat it like other elements of biology we seem to consider inclusion-worthy, such as genera. On the other hand, it's sourced to what may well be more of a primary than a secondary source. There's no consensus to be found here, but our resident specialists should get together and try to resolve the question at which level we want to cover this kind of concept via a projectspace discussion or an RfC. Sandstein 19:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drum RNA motif[edit]

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

Primary source only. No secondary sources for this scientific claim. Too soon for wikipedia. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 02:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: @Awkwafaba: academic journals are a weird case. They are refereed and therefore carry approval by a professional independent of the author (a characteristic of secondary sources). But the first time a scientist discovers a new concept, and thinks up a name for it, it's their personal new idea, albeit approved by a referee as professional, interesting and valuable. There is no guarantee that a particular idea will turn out to be important, and there's no guarantee that the terminology used by the idea's inventor will actually be adopted. In this sense, the article that first described the idea, or introduced new terminology, is primary. When other articles write about the same ideas, and people write review articles discussing the concepts that the first author described, and the review articles use the same terminology, then we have secondary sources. The point is this: academic journals are considered reliable sources, but not everything that appears in an academic journal is automatically notable for WP. If it makes it through to review articles and genuine secondary sources, notability is much more likely. RNA structure isn't my thing, so I'm not going to hazard a guess at this one. Elemimele (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Awkwafaba: It's explicitly mentioned in WP:PRIMARY , a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. SmartSE (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm only finding three instances where a paper cited the article that apparently introduced the "drum" term and actually used it. By itself, that wouldn't be enough to justify a page. I'm also concerned about a possible conflict of interest, since the article was created by Zashaw and the first author on the only reference is Zasha Weinberg. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And Zashaw has created what seems to be 100s of pages that are based on original research from his/her/their lab that has not been verified/duplicated elsewhere. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 18:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a paper published in a journal is "original research" by Wikipedia's policy (in fact, it would seem to be the exact opposite of that, since the research occurred somewhere else, and was published after independent peer review). jp×g 09:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It gets worse: Category:Non-coding_RNA has DOZENS of "motifs" with the same single-author source. Either they're all notable, or NONE of them are. This needs attention from an expert, I think. PianoDan (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I couldn't agree more. RNA structure is desperately important and interesting, but it needs to be dealt with in a balanced manner covering the global state-of-the-art, and we need one or more experts who can sort out the genuinely notable from the TooSoon and the trial-ideas that will fall by the wayside. Elemimele (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have responded to these concerns here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Hundreds_of_RNA_motif_pages . I believe that rsjaffe added this issue at that location in response to the comments raised here in this nomination for deletion (specifically the perceived conflict of interest, and the fact that it affects multiple Wikipedia articles). I think we might as well continue the discussion in one place. Zashaw (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the current head of Rfam, I would like to voice my support for keeping this article, as well as other articles authored by Zasha Weinberg (Zashaw). These articles accompany the entries in the Rfam database of RNA families that capture the data reported in the scientific literature and create computational models to enable identification of these RNAs in any sequence. Rfam staff include trained bioinformaticians and RNA biologists who carefully review all entries and provide additional verification that these RNAs are important (Rfam is not affiliated with Zasha Weinberg or his institution). For example, this Wikipedia article about the Drum RNA is part of the Rfam entry RF02958 and includes an infobox showing metadata from Rfam. Many RNAs discovered by Zasha Weinberg have been later shown to serve important functions, so it is important to have Wikipedia entries that describe what these RNAs are. Having scientists like Zasha Weinberg provide starting points for Wikipedia entries about different RNAs is valuable because these pages are then edited and expanded by the community. In fact, Rfam pioneered the integration with Wikipedia over a decade ago (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3013711/), and we found that connecting the scientists and the community through Wikipedia has been very successful. Antonipetrov (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a catalog WP:NOTCATALOG. To give an example from an unrelated field, suppose we have a movie made and released, but it didn't make enough of an impression to be written about anywhere. However IMDb has information on it. Does the movie exist? Yes, of course it does, and we have good evidence that it exists. Is it noteworthy enough to be in Wikipedia? No it does not. If people later rediscover the movie and several independent articles are written about it, then, yes, it becomes noteworthy.
    It's not the existence per se nor the potential noteworthiness that makes something notable for Wikipedia. Thus my comment when I listed this, that it was perhaps too soon (see WP:TOOSOON for more explanation).
    The other thing that strikes me is that we have no article for RNA motifs. If motifs are important, why isn't there an overview article about them? That's what wikipedia is about; organizing significant knowledge, not listing every detail.
    I'm not passing final judgement on this and the other motif articles, but explaining why there are concerns. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 16:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Zashaw's comment below that the comparison between Rfam and IMDb is not valid. Rfam itself is very selective. We regularly reject submissions or skip papers without sufficient evidence. The fact that the Rfam team selected an RNA motif for inclusion in the database, created an accession, generated and uploaded a secondary structure diagram to Wikimedia, and added an infobox to the Wikipedia entry, is itself a testimony to the significance of these RNAs and the corresponding Wikipedia pages. Rfam serves as a secondary information source and an extra validation of importance of these molecules. If these RNAs are significant enough to appear in Rfam, the most widely used scientific database about RNA families, then I would argue they are also significant enough to appear in Wikipedia. Antonipetrov (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Rfam (as is common for scientific databases) is highly curated set that often involves additional original research (example for the Rfam FAQs). I can see wherre people are coming from in terms of notability concerns, but it's definitely part of a wider topic in the sciencey bits of WP. To avoid too much repetition, I'll comment separately below. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 01:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slam dunk Delete Primary source. These scientists should not be relying on wikipedia in their work either, so any consideration of their pleas to keep, which by their nature are not Wikipolicy based, should be ignored by the closer. Lets also delete the other 250 ish spam articles too. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)-Roxy the dog. wooF 15:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this makes sense: detectives shouldn't be relying on Wikipedia in their work either, but this does not amount to an AfD for murder or arson. Wikipedia is a reference work, which contains articles on topics with notability (i.e. relevance to some field of study or knowledge). I don't think it's any more complicated than that. jp×g 09:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: in view of the previous post, perhaps it was naive of me to have linked to my post on the conflict-of-interest page, rather than copying it here. In that post, I specifically addressed the Wikipedia policies that were raised as grounds for deletion, but the previous post does not address my arguments at all. (I will address rsjaffe's comment below.) My post on the other page was:
Thank you for alerting me to this discussion on my talk page, rsjaffe. As I understand it, you have two related concerns. First, these RNA motifs appear to be based only on primary literature, and not secondary literature. Secondly, they indeed derive from my own research, and so there appears to be a conflict of interest in my writing Wikipedia articles on them.
What is perhaps not made sufficiently clear in these articles is that the relevant RNAs were included in the Rfam Database. Rfam (see the citations in the Wikipedia article) is a database of different types of RNAs with a conserved structure, and its content undergoes significant curation by expert bioinformaticians, both in deciding which RNAs merit inclusion and what data about those RNAs to provide. It also provides data necessary for further scientific analysis of the RNAs.
With regard to the apparent lack of secondary source: The Rfam Database seems to me to qualify as a secondary source, since it is essentially a hand-curated encyclopedia of structured RNAs that meet Rfam's criteria (as I understand it, essentially that there is evidence of biologically relevant structure and function and that the data are meaningful). Therefore, I believe these Wikipedia pages are supported by a secondary source. You can confirm their inclusion in Rfam for yourself by looking for Rfam's information box in the relevant pages, introduced with the {{Infobox rfam ...}} tag in the markup. All data in this info box comes from the Rfam database. Beside the term "Rfam" is the accession for the given RNA and a link to its entry in Rfam. For example, on the Drum RNA motif page, you can click on the accession RF02958 (lower, right part of the page). Such links should be provided for all RNA articles I have added to Wikipedia.
With regard to the apparent conflict of interest: The Rfam Database is maintained by a group at the European Bioinformatics Institute and this group was previously located at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute. I have never had any affliation with either of these institutions, nor do I have any power to make Rfam incorporate specific RNAs into their database. Indeed some of the RNAs I have published were not included in the Rfam Database, and these RNAs do not have corresponding Wikipedia articles. Thus, I did not really decide to put these RNAs into Wikipedia, rather the Rfam group did. I just did the work to create the Wikipedia article in many cases.
In terms of resolving this issue, perhaps it would be helpful to have an "External links" section in the affected articles that explicitly links to Rfam, although I'm not sure how to practically do this with hundreds of articles.
I have alerted the Rfam team to this page, in case they want to weigh in. I will also link to my text here from the Articles for Deletion entry for the Drum RNA motif page, since I see that the same issues are being discussed there.
Zashaw (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In response to rsjaffe's comment above. (This user is directly responding to antonipetrov, but is implicitly also responding to my entry that I reposted immediately above.) I am not sure that the IMDB is a relevant analogy. Based on their page about adding films (https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/titles/submitting-a-completed-film-tv-show/GDWSDT4ECBJR84V2?ref_=helpart_nav_12#), it seems like they function similarly to Wikipedia, according to specific inclusion criteria that includes films that were merely streamed on the web. This is not comparable to the curation conducted by the Rfam Database. A couple hundred RNA motifs might sound like a lot, but if the Rfam Database were to include every RNA motif ever published (analogously to the IMDB), there would easily be 10000s or possibly 100000s if one were to really dig up every paper. I think a better analogy would be if top film experts, like Siskel and Ebert in their day were to publish a list of movies they judged as significant. It's a bit of a weird analogy, because obviously modern science is different from movies, but I think it's more similar to the current situation.
Many comments above in this deletion nomination in fact explicitly state the need for an expert opinion for these Wikipedia articles. For example, PianoDan writes, "This needs attention from an expert, I think," to which Elemimele replies, "Yes, I couldn't agree more. RNA structure is desperately important and interesting, but it needs to be dealt with in a balanced manner covering the global state-of-the-art, and we need one or more experts who can sort out the genuinely notable from the TooSoon and the trial-ideas that will fall by the wayside." I am unclear why the curators of the Rfam Database are not considered the very experts in the field that were sought. What kind of expert did the above editors have in mind when they called for an expert to evaluate the articles?
I think the idea of an "RNA motif" article is an interesting one. However, the idea does appear in Gene prediction, though not by that name. The concept of RNA motifs also appear in other articles, e.g. the first section of Riboswitch (full disclosure: I started the riboswitch article, although many others have edited it.) and is implicit in the Rfam article itself. The absence of a standalone article doesn't mean that the concept is deemed insignificant, it just means that no-one has written that particular article, and the content is spread among other articles. This is a common situation in Wikipedia, because obviously editors choose specific articles to write, and there is no authority mandating that all articles in a particular area be written. Also, Wikipedia has lots of articles on specific examples of things; there are umpteen thousands of articles on specific movies or specific small towns. As to the question of whether RNA motifs are actually scientifically significant: A search of PubMed shows 412 results for a search of "RNA motif" (with quotes; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22rna+motif%22), which will not find scientific papers that discuss the concept using different terminology (e.g. "predicted RNA gene", "structural RNA alignment", etc) or papers that analyze such RNA motifs further. Indeed the Rfam database itself tends to use the term "RNA family", and looking in the first-cited Rfam paper within the Rfam article, reference number 1 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC165453/), the term "RNA motif" doesn't appear at all. Thus, the concept is a scientifically significant one, even if multiple terms are used and there is no direct Wikipedia article at this time.
Zashaw (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question to be answered for each page, including the one here, is not whether RNA motif is significant, but whether the specific RNA motif described on the particular page is significant enough to be in wikipedia. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit puzzled by this response. The last paragraph of my comment (but not the first two paragraphs) was a response to your earlier rhetorical question "If motifs are important, why isn't there an overview article about them". I argued that these motifs are important. Did I misinterpret what you were saying, or was I not clear what I was responding to? If so, I'm sorry if I contributed to us getting off topic.
At any rate, I agree that the question is whether the articles belong in Wikipedia. From my perspective, the essential history of this deletion nomination is that you argued that there's no secondary source, so the articles don't belong, while I contended that Rfam is a secondary source. You then argued (in your response to antonipetrov) that Rfam is more like IMDB, and therefore not a meaningful secondary source, and I argued that that's not a valid comparison. We can agree or disagree on these points, but I believe this line of debate is indeed addressing the question of whether these articles fit into Wikipedia. Zashaw (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / transwiki I'm sure this was created with the best of intentions, but it is a neologism that is only used in a single publication. A database such as Rfam doesn't fit well into our classification of primary and secondary sources but it certainly does not contain an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources as we define a secondary source. WP:SCIRS is pretty clear that a secondary source is a review or book, which as far as I can tell, do not provide any coverage of this concept. SmartSE (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at https://rfam.org/family/RF02958 I see that the Wikipedia article is transcluded to Rfam. It would seem as if Rfam should fire up their own wiki for this and all the other articles mentioned at COIN and then move them over from here, but it is probably best discussed at COIN rather than here. SmartSE (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify this and all the others in a List of RNA motifs. While we seem to have a tacit agreement that species are inherently notable (and a failed proposal at WP:NSPECIES), these clearly fall below species level. This one is not notable by our standards (the name appears to be an invention of the authors of the single reference), but should be covered at least briefly in the encyclopaedia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Justlettersandnumbers:: Could you say more about what you mean by "(The RNA motifs) clearly fall below species level"? It seems to me that they're analogous to species. For example, one could essentially take the arguments made against notability of the RNA motifs and make them against new species that might have few citations ("okay, the species exists, but how do we know if that species is really important / too soon / too few citations"). Moreover, it seems to me that the requirement for a "correct name(botany) or valid name (zoology)" (quoting from WP:NSPECIES that you linked) is analogous to requiring an entry in the Rfam Database, since there is a body in taxonomy that certifies names (as I understand it; it's not my subfield) that is broadly analogous to Rfam.
You're right that the names of the RNA motifs were my invention, but _someone_ has to come up with a name. Species names are also someone's invention. How could someone describe something new (species or RNA motif) without coming up with a new name / designation? Moreover, these names are essentially ratified by Rfam, which again seems analogous to the species names, which someone proposes and is apparently ratified in either the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants or the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Anyway, there's a lot of different perspectives expressed here in this deletion discussion, and I'd like to understand your point of view better. It's an interesting comparison. Zashaw (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can try, Zashaw, but this is just my opinion and I am not a biologist. We have articles on many types of motor car, though some such pages may be a redirect to a manufacturer or a model range. We have articles on some types of engine used in some of those cars. We don't have, or need to have, an article on every specific type of washer or oil-seal used in each of those engines; those things are surely mentioned in parts-lists, technical diagrams, manufacturers' catalogues and so on, but they don't meet our thresholds of notability. We have an article on Lego, and numerous articles on various Lego product ranges; we don't (as far as I'm aware) have any page on any individual Lego kit, and we neither have nor need an article on every individual type of Lego brick. Here we seem to have got things back-to-front: we have 200(?) articles on the washers or bricks, but no page on the whole topic (unless it's under a different title?). Merging those to list is one possible solution to that – it preserves the content and resolves the question of notability. Oh, and our coverage of species is hopelessly incomplete. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwikify per SmartSE's suggestion. While an impressive amount of effort has gone into putting all this information onto Wikipedia, it is not the function of Wikipedia to essentially be a mirror for Rfam. If Rfam exists, then why shouldn't THAT just be the catalog? Add an article on the concept of an RNA Motif which likely does have enough coverage for notability, and add articles for the individual motifs when and if they rise to the level of notable one at a time. PianoDan (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator agrees with User:PianoDan. For most of the motifs, see WP:TOOSOON and WP:PSTS. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge to a list if you must, though I personally prefer short standalone articles). We have lots of short articles on Pfam entries (protein domains), why not Rfam? RNA always gets the short end of the stick compared to proteins. There was a plan awhile back in collaboration with Pfam to migrate their summary descriptions to the corresponding Wikipedia articles and I imagine that's where Rfam might have gotten the idea, though I don't know the status of that work - as a user of these databases, it seems incomplete. Contrary to the above, this strikes me as closely analogous to the situation with species where we consider inclusion in an expert-curated classification system to be sufficient for inclusion here too. More broadly, I can't help but think the correct answer to noticing all these pages was "Hey, thanks for making all those articles that improve our coverage of obscure biological topics! These might not get many readers, though; have you considered working on broader nucleic acid articles like pseudoknot, or ones of topical interest like Coronavirus 3′ UTR?" Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Opabinia regalis: Whilst I agree with your sentiment, that's not really the topic at hand here and I'm struggling to see a policy-based reason for your !vote. Looking through the articles listed in template:Protein domains, they do seem to have much better sourcing than this one. It's not up to us to fix "RNA always gets the short end of the stick compared to proteins." SmartSE (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting at WT:BIOL was a good idea, thanks (though I also recommend WT:MCB) - it's too bad our processes apparently led someone looking for a second opinion to COIN and AfD to greet new expert editors with distracting wiki-jargon instead of wikiprojects where experienced editors knowledgeable about the subject can be found.
    I think this point has been made in two places now, here and at the COIN thread, that Rfam is a manually expert-curated source. Think of it as a review article that's searchable and regularly updated. I'm unclear on why this keeps getting missed, or why we would ignore existing precedent with a similar database (Pfam), or indeed large numbers of scientific topics that fall within an expert-curated classification system (genes, species, and so forth). This seems to have come up for RNA because the subject is less familiar. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – mentioned in two independent sources PMID 33211869, 33125376. Boghog (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Boghog: Unless I'm mistaken, the coverage in those is limited to ... and drum RNA (RF02958) examples/ and Metagenomic-based RNAs Drum (RF02958) respectively. Hardly WP:SIGCOV is it? SmartSE (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are well-formed, keep. Excellent framework articles. scope_creepTalk 21:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I understand the concerns raised by those above. The two main issues being notability of the articles' topics and the references cited within them. Most of these aspects affect not only the RNA motif pages, but a range of other science stubs.
Re: References, the Rfam database (and databases like it) should count as references in and of themselves if there is evidence of curation or formalised review/checking process. in this case, Rfam is closer to secondary synthesis than to primary research, though there are often automated original checks involved in adding database items. Conceivably something on this needs to be added to WP:SCIRS. Since refs are used to both evidence specific claims and support notability, I'll address the notability aspects below.
Re: Notability, I think this is the larger issue at discussion here. I totally sympathise with someone looking at one of these pages and seeing them not match WP:GNG. the same is true for most genes, gene families, proteins, rna domains, species, and plenty of other biology topics. I suspect similar discussions are held about exoplanet lists vs articles etc. I'm pretty sure there have been prev discussions on several of these (I'll add links if I find them [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]). I think that inclusion in a curated database such as Rfam gives good support for notability in this case, even aside from it's transclusion of WP content as summaries.
Although I'm generally against instruction creep, perhaps there's scope for a short guideline on notability of science topics to cover these sorts of cases? At least something in WP:MOLBIO's resources.
Re: Potential organisation solutions proposed above, My initial thoughts are that lists are appropriate when info on each item is likely to be highly structured and consistent so can fit into a table (e.g. restriction enzyme cutting sites has a couple of possible relevant bits of info per item, likely indefinitely). Merging each page into a hierarchically related page can also work in some cases (e.g. significant mutations can usually be described within the relevant gene/protein article, rather than a separate article; similarly subspecies, cultivars and strains are usually kept within the article on their respective species). However, neither protein motifs or RNA motifs fall into either of these scenarios.
  • deletion/transwikification: Although I see the reasoning behind suggesting this, it creates its own issues to do with duplication of content and efforts and fragmentation of topics. E.g. separate wikis for genes, gene families, proteins, rna domains, etc. Indeed some of those early separate wikis were deliberately merged into WP to avoid those sorts of issues. CAZypedia (carbohydrate-active enzymes) is a counterexample that remains separate, but causes a bit of a mess of duplication of some topics (not helped by their decision to be incompatibly licensed, but that's another, more annoying story). Wikispecies is probably the best counterexample, but even that has frequent discussions around merging into WP. If the some (or all) RNA motif content is moved off-wiki, it'd probably still be possible to do some hybrid solution at Rfam where content is drawn from WP if present, and from a local wiki if not.
  • listification: These often have high maintenance overhead and get out of date and messy pretty fast compared to categories. For example: 'List_of_human_genes_on_chromosome_12' was created to summarise stubs (similar to this discussion), then merged to be a section of Chromosome_12, which now See also links to Category:Genes_on_human_chromosome_12. Note that this would still cause the issue of which ones had a separate page as well, and the divergence of content between the separate pages and their corresponding list sections. If listification is done, I'd recommend including the content of all current stubs as sections in a list (rather than just listing names) so that the information is retained and so that those sections can still be usefully transcluded by Rfam (less like this or this, more like this or this. However, the infoboxes will likely stack horribly, so would probably beed a {{clear}} at the end of each section. Again a hybrid solution by Rfam would be needed where content is drawn from the article if present, and from the list section if not.
  • merging individually into other articles: For both protein and RNA motifs, there isn't a simple hierarchical relationship to the various RNAs/proteins that they're present in.
So, with all that said, my preferred solution is to retain the individual articles organised by categories. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 04:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am not seeing a lot of convincing arguments for deletion of the topic, but I am not seeing a lot of convincing arguments for keeping it either. jp×g 09:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep RNA motifs are notable by itself, deleting or moving anything to another wiki would make the info less accessible and wouldn't benefit anybody. Artem.G (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. notable basic biology. There seems to be some misplaced concern that there are too many articles, being added indiscriminately. I think the situation is, rather, the very rapid progress in molecular biology that makes identifying significant structures much more feasible. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, after some further deliberation on the arguments that have been presented here. I see a few "delete" !votes, making arguments I don't find particularly slam-dunky (citing a peer-reviewed paper and a scientific database with editorial oversight is not a violation of WP:OR). While I must confess I'm not professionally conversant in recent revelopments in RNA macrostructure, I was able to read over the paper referenced by the article (as well as the Rfam entries mentioned earlier). Whether it has been borne out by further research is unclear to me, but it seems to me like the concept certainly and obviously exists. And, again, it's an open question whether the creation of separate articles for each identified motif is justified based on this -- I'll note that RNA motif, which ought to be a parent page describing this concept in depth, is instead a redlink. However, I don't think there is a good basis to simply delete the information (which is the only realistic choice here, since a target article doesn't exist to be merged to). jp×g 10:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Northern Cyprus#Europe. Sandstein 19:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Representative of North Cyprus, London[edit]

Representative of North Cyprus, London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Embassies/consulates are not inherently notable, this one even less so. Similar AfD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Representative Office of Northern Cyprus in New York LibStar (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure)

Fayat Group[edit]

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

Not finding sources indicating a pass of WP:GNG or WP:CORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources I've found so far amount to press releases and minor coverage. An earlier attempt at PROD due to lack of notability was unsuccessful. ASUKITE 14:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simple - Notability is not 'important' or 'influential' or 'successful'. It's 'the extent to which something has been the topic of media coverage' the extent to which it has been noted. Its subsidiary has been noted more than the parent - RichT|C|E-Mail 01:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as there are independent research reports providing in-depth independent analysis - for example this and this. Article could use some improvement but that's not an issue for AfD. HighKing++ 14:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Coverage in paywalled sectoral reports may not be sufficient, but there is also recent coverage such as this analysis in Les Echos (regional). AllyD (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Many editors express concerns about the quality of this article, but there's a strong consensus that these issues should be addressed outside of AfD. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of pornography[edit]

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

WP:TNT is needed, since the article has become a garbage bin of violating WP:MEDRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify for complete rewriting. The current direction of the article is unsalvageably vague. It is like have an article titled Effects of food on weight presenting conclusions that eating food (of unspecified kinds) leads to getting fat, with the implied corollary that the healthiest route is never eating food. BD2412 T 05:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify stat, per nom and BD2412’s very funny analysis. I’d also consider draftification of Effect of sex in the media, which looks even worse at a glance. Update: vote neutral, jumped the gun, agree with Jclemens and also WP:NOTCLEANUP. “It’s crappy” is not a reason to send a vital article to deletion. Dronebogus (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 16:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 16:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1) No underlying cause for deletion is articulated, 2) No specific WP:MEDRS violations are contended, 3) no attempts have been made to edit out any MEDRS violations, and 4) A wikiproject inquiry at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Effects of pornography yielded no specific issues either. A more accurate and detailed statement is necessary for this to be evaluated. Jclemens (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I made this proposal because I'm asking for help. This task is too much for me, I am not a medical professional, and I do not want to be alone against two dozens well-meaning people who don't abide by WP:MEDRS. The article is crammed with medical claims, overt and covert, 90% of which I guess utterly fail WP:MEDRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is neither the right forum, nor the right way to go about such a thing. If you want help to improve the article, start by cataloguing errors or problems, ask for help, use the talk page and appropriate wikiprojects. If you want to do that, withdraw the AfD as premature, because you've failed to articulate what specific problems need to be addressed. It's a big article with a lot of sources, so if you think 90% is problematic, you need to be able to articulate which is problematic and why. TNT is a last resort, not a first resort. Jclemens (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Primary-source science papers are disallowed, correct? As in, papers that report the results of a single study, rather than review articles? @Tgeorgescu: It looks like the recent additions that have driven you to give up and come to AfD are from an undergraduate student editor with WikiEdu, who probably got told "no original research" not "no papers reporting the results of a single study". If you're at the end of your rope on this and think you might WP:BITE them, I'm happy to go talk to them. I notice that WP:MED aren't linked on the talk page of this article, and it might be worth hailing someone there for help picking out the stuff that violates WP:MEDRS guidelines. -- asilvering (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect – primary science papers are allowed, though WP:MEDRS heavily discourages them. There are exceptions, for example if you look here you can see I recently suggested a couple of primary papers be incorporated in one of our medical FAs, and leading MEDs editors agreed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering: I'm not accusing the student. The problem dates back several months and maybe several years. The general problem is that there are very few sources about the effects of pornography which pass WP:MEDRS. I.e. top-quality research (i.e. indexed for MEDLINE), and at the same time systematic reviews of literature.
    The student popped up a few days ago, my criticism of According to WP:SCIRS, Cite reviews, don't write them is older.
    To put the finger where it hurts, this is generally true for porn research: a small amount of variation gets explained, and causality cannot be shown.
    And 90% of the papers about porn are even far below such research level (either they do no have empirical data at all, or there is no responsible statistical work done on the empirical data). tgeorgescu (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just fyi, this is not really a wp:med article, hence it not being on the talk page. While a fair chunk of the article does make "medical" claims per the WP definition, it's not actually directly related to medicine. And a fair amount of the article doesn't make medical claims, as pointed out in the above discussion. If you think people will struggle to differentiate (and they will, tbh), you can always put an invisible comment on the health-related sections reminding people that they need to meet MEDRS. --Xurizuri (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A decent article that isn't too far of the POV found in the latest systematic reviews. The guess that 90% of the article "utterly fail WP:MEDSRS" is wildly inaccurate. Less than 10% fits that description (though probably about 40% needs improvement to be fully MEDS compliant.) The vagueness BD2412 criticises is a reflection of the lack of current scientific consensus on this topic, depsite the many thousands of studies in this area. Lastly, it's sub optimal to put an article up for deletion when a student's working on it for their assignment and is due to finish in two days. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep I just want to back up FeydHuxtable's statement about scientific consensus. The research in this area has a lot of holes in it, but WP summarises the scientific consensus. And so here we are. The most we can do is include the enormous amount of criticism of the research, which there is some attempts at within the article. --Xurizuri (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but blow up straight away. Strip any and everything not sourced impeccably at the right level. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup, removing poorly sourced material, etc. This is obviously a notable and well-studied topic.VR talk 05:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously a notable topic, and I'm surprised to see this get listed. WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Regarding "vagueness", I agree with FeydHuxtable. Crossroads -talk- 06:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - AfD is not cleanup. The article is clearly deeply flawed and many parts should be excised, but the topic itself is still clearly notable. Since this subject is inevitably controversial and likely a magnet for editorialising and poorly-sourced tangents (ie. the Pamela Anderson bit) I can see a strong argument for applying some level of page protection so more-experienced editors who are knowledgeable in the field can focus on finding the highest-quality sources and creating a more coherent article with less of an issue of people just slipping rubbish into it. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a notable article, it's just messy. Stubify it if it's that much of an issue. --Xurizuri (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that the article as it is now is mainly about health (mental and physical) and WP:MEDRS should therefore be its main guide for sourcing. The merge added a lot, although a little cutting followed. So there's just more work to do on the article now. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Budoff[edit]

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

non-notable researcher who fails WP:GNG. only indication of notability is a paid obituary in The New York Times. Google reveals very little. She is cited several times on various newspapers, but nothing specifically about her. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Penny Wise Budoff of the Stony Brook medical school in New York found that mMefenamic acid (Postel) produced significant relief from pain, nausea, and diarrhea in 44 women with debilitating menstrual cramps (spasmodic dysmenorrhea). ...
For years the standard treatment for women with severe menstrual problems has been to put them on oral contraceptives. Dr. Budoff questioned the necessity for taking "21 days of birth control pills to get 24 hours of relief from pain." Reasoning She reasoned that a drug which inhibits prostaglandin synthesis or interferes with the prostaglandin receptors would stop the cramps,. Dr. Budoff approached Warner Lambert with a proposal to test Ponstel (already marketed for treating arthritis pain), which was already on the market for treating arthritis pain, against menstrual cramps. ... The pilot study results were impressive enough that the company finally funded a larger clinical study.

JoelleJay (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch on the copyvio! I removed the major copyvio you flagged, together with some anyway-less-notable material that looked to be copied from encyclopedia.com, and requested revdel. I think I got it all -- in the article history, the problematic material seems to have been introduced by users Gidget92 and Femmelady. Take a look. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I came to the same conclusion regarding provenance and left warnings on their talk pages, although neither has edited since the date the copyvios were introduced. JoelleJay (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject's books, medical work and awards show notability. I cleaned up the article some but it could use more work. But that does not detract from the subject's work, which has been cited in the Washington Post, New York Times, American Medical Association and New England Journal of Medicine, all of which confirm notability. Clearly passes WP:GNG and meets both WP:BASIC and WP:NAUTHOR. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above. WestCD (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seem to meet WP:NAUTHOR. WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above passes WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadarius Hutcherson[edit]

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

Article about an American Football player who has not yet played a regular season game in the NFL failing WP:NGRIDIRON. They have been injured and will not be playing anytime soon. Reliable sources do not offer enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start off with I have no issues with it being recreated once they play a game. In the sources I see nothing that makes them any more notable then any other NFL draftee. I think there is a lack of sustained coverage. Excluding the article (the first 2 references) about them as a highschool player per WP:YOUNGATH the rest are about his journey to being drafted which would be considered a burst of news and failing WP:SUSTAINED. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While you say that "I see nothing that makes them any more notable then any other NFL draftee." I'd like to note that nearly every other NFL draftee is notable (we're missing just one article on a draft pick from the last decade), so he does not need to be more notable than someone else. Also, from what I've seen in other deletion discussions, articles like the ones I've shown are considered significant, and therefore he meets the general notability guideline. If you need additional sources then here you go: [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This player may play in a regular season game. Recreation of this article would be too tedious if it was deleted. --InternetScavenger89 — Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an invalid argument for keeping an article per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Undeletion is an option if they do end up meeting the criteria in the future. 01:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, He will eventually play in one NFL game. He is on a 3 year contract. Wp9097 (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above, you don't know and we don't predict the future here. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify for now. Henderson has a pretty standard UDFA contract with minimal guaranteed money, meaning that the player can be cut without serious financial consequences to the team, so it's not a given that he will be on the team next year. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hutcherson does not need to meet NGRIDIRON if he has met GNG, and he appears to per the sources I have provided. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dagne Crane[edit]

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

No significant coverage and no major roles. SL93 (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Villain. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tragic villain[edit]

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

This appears to entirely be unreferenced original research or Dictionary-level definitions of a term. Since this was until very recently redirected to Villain, I suggest that this once again be redirected to Villain, where the concept could be adequately covered in its section on "Villain archetypes". — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Lordy. Villain isn't in great shape either, but absolutely this should redirect there. It doesn't have any more material than any of the other archetypes on Villain (which are all uncited, oof), and there is also already a heading there on sympathetic villains. Keeping this separate doesn't make much sense and is just going to lead to an ever-expanding "in popular culture" list, which is already out of control. (Quasimodo? Ancient Minister from Super Smash Bros. Brawl?!) Worth noting that this is basically a straight restoration of the page that was initially redirected - down to the maintenance tags from 2007. The IP editor who brought this back hasn't made any changes to it, just the categories. If someone wants to improve this, they can do so perfectly well on Villain (and please fix the rest of that article while you're at it). -- asilvering (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to villain, preferably a specific section if possible. Dronebogus (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and don't merge or keep any of the existing material. It's just original research and none of it would be broadly useful to the topic even if it were cited - it's WP:UNDUE culled from a list of what appears to be someone's favorite video games. Yikes. - car chasm (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect -- The fact that all we have apart from a definition is a list from "popular culture" speaks for itself. "Popular culture" sections of articles were largely deleted many years ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hog Farm Talk 14:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of DCS modules[edit]

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

As per precedent set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modelled aircraft in IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover. List is all WP:GAMEGUIDE material, breaks WP:VGSCOPE (#7), and does not appear to meet WP:LISTN as it uses almost entirely unreliable / 1st party sources. HarryKernow (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it is not a list of aircraft found in a video game. It is a list of video games, same as other similar lists in this encyclopedia. Kintaro (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It just links to various real life military vehicles, not to notable game releases. Go to https://digital_combat_simulator.fandom.com/ and click Start your own wiki then you can unload the information there. Dream Focus 00:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Ajf773 (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty clear WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE violation, as a list of game vehicles.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the arguments advanced in the nomination, which seem persuasive to me. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be mostly unsourced GAMEGUIDE material. IceWelder [✉] 19:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. -- ferret (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not similar to the IL-2 Sturmovik list. This is a list of downloadable content (DLC), a common thing to make a video game list. It's not just WP:GAMEGUIDE material and doesn't break WP:VGSCOPE (#7) since these are invidual game releases. This game is essentially F2P game and all content is through these "modules". Similar how Rock Band series has a dozen song lists (e.g. 2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series). Not every song release on that list is invidually notable. Same way most of the modules of DCS are not notable but some are (see: A10C & Black Shark). --Mika1h (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added sources to the article from PC Gamer and Rock, Paper, Shotgun. --Mika1h (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now also PCGamesN has been added. All three reliable sources according to Video Games project. --Mika1h (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your vote and comment, Mika1h. Sadly, from experience I know they won't listen. Those who want this list is deleted usually think it is normal to preserve other lists in Wikipedia, lists exactly fulflling the very same requirements. Contradictory, I know, but there's nothing we can do. The list will be deleted, that's for sure, and this is why I'm commenting only, not voting. Kintaro (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kintaro Your pessimism is very annoying and only says to me that you don't really take the concerns seriously. I obviously am very interested in DCS as I've played it since late 2015 and I am very interested in meaningful, well-written coverage in Wikipedia. That being said, I do agree that DCS modules are DLC, but I essentially fail to see any meaningful difference from prototypical DLC. They are not standalone, you cannot play them without DCS World - it makes it more like Rail Simulator's DLC than say an expansion pack like Diablo II: Lord of Destruction. There are also no physical copies; you can only buy access to the modules per account with Eagle Dynamics. Furthermore, I think WP:VGSCOPE #7 still applies, especially given the very specific wording against lists of vehicles and suggestions for a "concise summary" instead. Finally, after reviewing 2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series, I fail to see how the references in that list or this list point to significant "[discussion] as a group or set by independent reliable sources" (WP:LISTN); many of the references are not independent or do not give any indication as to why the group (2009 Rock Band DLC) is notable. Also, many links have since broken or won't load for me, and many are simply promotional material for the game or songs in it. Reviewing List of DCS modules reveals a similar story, with only 8 of 46 (by my quick once-over count) NOT being from Eagle Dynamic's site or forums. Of those 8, under half are discussing strictly one or a group of modules, and at least one isn't even about DCS. Even if you think that's an unfair tally, 8-9 out of 46 with the same Tim Stone author repeated 4 times is a sad state of affairs. HarryKernow (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hog Farm Talk 14:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coley (band)[edit]

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

Poorly referenced article about a band with no properly verifiable claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest notability claim here is airplay and/or charting on individual radio stations -- but NMUSIC #2 (charting) requires an IFPI-certified national chart on the order of Billboard, not individual radio station charts, and #11 (airplay) requires a national network on the order of CBC Music, not individual radio stations. There's just no other real notability claim being attempted above and beyond "they existed", the only footnote in the entire article is to their own self-published Facebook profile, and even on a ProQuest search I can find absolutely no WP:GNG-worthy coverage beyond their hometown media market. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't soft-delete due to removal of PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Sourcing remains moribund with no indication that the band passes WP:NBAND. The "highlights" are unsourced and don't look all too prestigious regardless. Anarchyte (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mississippi College Choctaws football. While a pure head count might at first seem a "no consensus" result, the "keep" arguments did not persuasively and specifically address the arguments that there is a dearth of significant reliable and independent material about this subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robinson-Hale Stadium[edit]

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

There's no reason that I can find that this stadium would be independently notable of Mississippi College and/or Mississippi College Choctaws football. The stadium appears to fail all aspects of WP:NBUILDING. As a result, I propose that this be redirected to Mississippi College Choctaws football, where the stadium can be appropriately covered without the need for a separate article. — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I created the article before adding the sources, I since then had added. The article is a Wikipedia:Stub acknowledging the general stats and info of the stadium. I created the article as well because 98 other articles link to the stadium and growing. If the standard is not set up correctly, then there are several "stadium" articles that have less if not nothing on their page to be worthy of its own page. Keep for now. --Jpp858 (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG with sources on the field renovation in the article, plus a simple google search n the news shows that the stadium's reach is far beyond just the school's football program. It's typical for college football stadiums to have their own article and the nature of news coverage on sports shows that stadiums produce more than enough coverage to surpass the general notability guideline. For more details, see essay WP:CFBSTADIUM--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I second the above comment by User:Paulmcdonald, this article is certainly a stub but I believe it includes enough citations to appear reliable and notable. The football program, being an NCAA D2, is certainly notable enough to have a stand-alone article of the stadium. As User:Jpp858 mentions, 98 articles link to the stadium, which makes it seem foolish to delete this page. Porterland 05:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "98" linking articles is a red herring which is driven by the stadium having been added (within the past week) as links on several templates such as Template:Mississippi college football venues, Template:Southwestern Athletic Conference football venue navbox, and Template:Mississippi College Choctaws football navbox. Cbl62 (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILDING. I searched extensively in Newspapers.com and came up empty in terms of WP:SIGCOV (even as to the dedication in 1985). Moreover, the sources cited in the article lack WP:INDEPENDENCE and/or WP:DEPTH. The referenced sources about the 2015 turf replacement are both word-for-word reprints of a press release issued by the athletic department (one of the sources here explicitly cites "GoChoctaws.com" as the true source of the content). Accordingly, I come up completely empty in terms of SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. In a case like this, where the stadium for a Division II program fails GNG, a paragraph on the stadium added to the main article on Mississippi College Choctaws football will suffice. Cbl62 (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, where are the users commenting on these other stadium articles. See GSC football venue navbox or the CIAA football venue navbox any many more that is DIV-II (Harvey Randall Wickes Memorial Stadium), I could also pull many DIV-I articles as well (i.e. Buccaneer Field). I created this article and included more sources than many out there, I didn't add the sources at first and had since added. I am okay with a redirect (like i.e. Tom Adams Field), but are we going to go around the Wikipedia and redirecting all the articles that don't have a reliable source or focus just on one main one, whereas this article features several? --Jpp858 (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpp858: The AfD process can seem random. There's nothing scientific about which articles get nominated and which ones don't. Don't take it personally. Cbl62 (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: Not taking it personally, but should hold other articles to the same standard. --Jpp858 (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is deleted you can also take those to AfD (although be sure to avoid doing so for WP:POINT, having said that, I know that at times I nominate articles for AfD because I've come across them via random article and I therefore don't end up on other articles. I definitely understand the frustration of A being nominated when X, Y, and Z all have articles. I honestly at times wish for more WP:BUNDLE so it seems less arbitrary, but also you want to avoid WP:TRAINWRECK (or its more profane sibling), so it's a balance. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 04:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Kind of surprised. Where are you finding the WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources? I have yet to see any. Cbl62 (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Mississippi College Choctaws football. This is a perfect example of an article that doesn't have enough to warrant an article but is still worth merging to improve the merge target. Which is pretty lackluster itself and could use the references. Otherwise, someone might decide to split the difference by having them both deleted. Might as well merge this and save the information from both instead. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep': On balance I would keep, its the most logical place to keep the contents for ease of our readers.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge I agree that it fails WP:NBUILDING,but other than that it's all good. Wp9097 (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wp9097: Can you clarify what you mean by "other than that it's all good"? Do you believe it passes GNG? I have yet to see even one example of WP:SIGCOV. Why do you believe this is a GNG pass? Cbl62 (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keeping this article separate feels most logical to me. I feel the sourcing is sufficient. A merge to Mississippi College Choctaws football doesn't make sense as the stadium has a running track and is used for non-football events. NemesisAT (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per WP:ATD. The sourcing comes nowhere close to meeting any notability guidelines, specifically WP:NBUILDING and WP:GNG; most sources are not independent of the subject (including several press releases), and the few that are do not contain any significant coverage – all but one do nothing more than confirm the stadium exists, it's name and who it was named after, and who plays there. Unable to find anything that would change that. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge "Stadium" is a stretch...it's a generic field with a grandstand, not an enclosed or fully-surrounded arena. I don't see substantive coverage about the place itself. Having running events there too does not mean this can't be covered at the football article. Reywas92Talk 20:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge While college football stadiums at the Division I level will generally pass GNG, that is not what we're talking about here, this is a Division II college football stadium. Most coverage of college football, and by extension the venues it takes place, is of Division I. There are numerous articles, books, even about Division I college football stadiums, while DII gets much less coverage. Despite some people attempting to use this AfD as a referendum or proxy for the notability of college football stadiums in general, that is not what we should be doing here. The question is whether this particular college football stadium is notable. And I'm not seeing that it is. I'd strongly caution other !voters against using this AfD as evidence of a more general consensus against college football stadium notability, particularly as it applies to higher levels, but in this case GNG is not met. Smartyllama (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please click the recommended news link for just a glance at the records of the stadium in just the "current news" cycle. There's also significant coverage among the sources in the article itself.
I searched at length and could not find any SIGCOV. Can you provide a couple examples of what you found? As noted above, the pieces in the article now about installing new field turf are reproductions of a school press release and not independent. Cbl62 (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ohemaa Adjei Andoh[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPROF. Not convinced meets WP:GNG. Kj cheetham (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to be clear, I added the detail about the Ghana National Science and Maths Quiz and had to look up the UN magazine. DaffodilOcean (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Africa Renewal magazine coverage doesn't count towards notability as it is a primary, non-independent source. Interviews have long been held insufficient for these purposes unless the author provides independent SIGCOV commentary on the subject, which is not present here. The Modern Ghana coverage is non-trivial, but primarily focuses on GIST rather than Andoh. News Ghana appears close to SIGCOV but also seems to be derived from an interview, so not independent. Salone Messenger is also mostly an interview, but there is substantial commentary on her in the introduction so it might work towards SIGCOV. The Edward Asare interview, however, does not contain sufficient independent analysis. If other reliable sources can be found giving her significant independent coverage she could meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete unless more substantial coverage is unearthed. JoelleJay (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not yet notable--meets neither WP:PROF nor GNG--the references are not sigificant coverage., but PR. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlottetown Police Service[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG, specifically with respect to substantial coverage. Nothing but trivial local coverage appears in a web search. This has been a stub since it was created in 2005, which suggests that nobody else in the past 16 years has found substantial coverage to cite either.

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a relevant touchpoint, since (like most schools) this is an organization that is part of a municipality. Maybe it should have a small section on Charlottetown, but from the coverage I found (or didn't find), I'd say it should just be deleted or redirected. Apocheir (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The comment "has been a stub since it was created in 2005, which suggests that nobody else in the past 16 years has found substantial coverage to cite either" is somewhat of a false premise as it implies that people have been actively trying to find refs continuously for 16 years. Also I don't think wp:schooloutcomes should be considered as a "relevant touchpoint", this isn't a school, it's based on a 5 year old RfC, and we need to be wary wp:creep. This is local police force, servicing a city of 40,000, on an island of 140,000 with some of the lowest crime rates in Canada, including the lowest in the major crimes of murder (2020: zero) attempted murder (2020; zero), assaults, sex assaults, kidnapping, extortion, robbery, etc. It's not New York, but there is significant coverage in local sources, and the fact that this is one of the "oldest police forces in North America" is itself significantly notable. And finally, there's WP:HEY. - wolf 22:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard is WP:ORGCRIT: "A [...] organization [...] is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." WP:SIRS breaks that down: significant, independent, reliable, secondary. WP:AUD is also relevant: "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability".
    Looking through the references in the current version of the article, three are from charlottetownpolice.com, which is a primary source. Three are from saltwire.com, a local media source. There is a CBC article about 7 new constables being sworn in, which is trivial coverage: "of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel." That leaves one CBC article on the 2018 sex scandal. One is less than multiple.
    Prince Edward Island having the lowest crime rates in Canada is an interesting fact that might bear mentioning on the PEI page. Statistically I wonder about year-to-year variation in a region with a smaller population: was 2020 an outlier? It's only slightly lower than Ontario in for the "Violent Criminal Code violations (total)" row. It's not immediately clear how those rates apply to Charlottetown itself, or to what degree the Charlottetown police are responsible for those rates being slow. Crime rates depend on many factors, of which policing is only one.
    The statement "one of the oldest police forces in North America" is uncited and of dubious significance. As per History of criminal justice, modern police forces only came into existence in the mid-1800s, but have many precedents, and often the "founding" of a police agency involved the realignment and absorption of existing organizations. The earliest in North America was Toronto in 1834, versus Charlottetown twenty years later.
    I'm sorry, I just don't see how this deserves its own article. That's not a value judgement about the Charlottetown Police Service, it's a judgment about the available sources. Apocheir (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you've missed my point; I mentioned the stats that I did, again, to point out that that unlike the Toronto Police or NYPD, there isn't going to a plethora of news stories (which, let's face it, make up the majority of refs) about major crimes involving the service or about any internal politics and scandals. But, the P&Gs you've cited have been met, I believe. That's not a value judgement about your rather rash AfD, it's just that some articles aren't as large as others. Doesn't mean we need to delete them all. - wolf 23:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, jooc, how come I'm the only one here adding content? Did you do a wp:before check? - wolf 00:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The length of the article isn't in question, it's the WP:NOTABILITY of the topic. I am very confused that you believe this article in its current state demonstrates notability: I recommend reviewing WP:ORG. If you have found significant coverage in secondary sources that I overlooked, by all means add it to the article. Apocheir (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not what I asked. - wolf 03:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - in addition to the significant provincial coverage, there has been national coverage over the years. I've added a couple of references. Nfitz (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think much of the disagreement here results from different conceptions of what "significant coverage" means with regards to WP:ORG. I'd be interested in what the other editors think: which of the references on the page as it is now constitute significant coverage, and why? -Apocheir (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There should be no motive for a deletion in this regard. The page has significant coverage from Canada's highest-level newspaper of record: the CBC and there is a steady flow of coverage from other Canadian newspapers. Multi7001 (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Portland State University. Hog Farm Talk 14:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Portland State University College of Liberal Arts and Sciences[edit]

Portland State University College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient reliable sources to establish notability ElKevbo (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maseeh College of Engineering and Computer Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Portland State University School of Business Administration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ElKevbo (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Woody Woodpecker filmography#1949. There's consensus here that notability has not been established; no one has objected to redirecting as an alternative to deletion. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drooler's Delight[edit]

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

Fails NFILM, chock full of original research. I could only find the usual SPS like iMDB in a before search. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not true at all, GNG would call for at least three sources. That's not met here. And per SL93, one of the two listed sources isn't even a book! Are you even looking at the references in question before you !vote? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is only one book cited in the article and that encyclopedia appears to include all animated cartoons from 1911 to 1998. Anyone can tell that the The Walter Lantz Cartune Encyclopedia isn't an actual encyclopedia if they click on the link. It is actually a fan-made unofficial website. I did find this which isn't enough. SL93 (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You do know that these cartoon shorts were HUGE when originally released? Just because newspapers articles from the time aren't online now, or are behind paywalls, doesn't mean these shorts weren't notable upon release. Historical context must be considered. The notability requirements are meant to weed out people who make small independent releases and to prevent them from having their own articles on Wikipedia, they aren't meant to remove films/shorts from the classic Hollywood era that doesn't have the coverage of their time archived online. Woody Woodpecker was released by a MAJOR studio (Universal) and had almost 200 shorts. This was like #42...if it wasn't notable upon release, 150 more WOULDN'T have been made. Common sense needs to be applied to these shorts. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not about if they were notable when released, it's about if they are notable today. There was obviously no Wikipedia in 1949, and I don't think the creators were deciding to release more shorts based on if they would meet Wikipedia's GNG 70 years later. If sources cannot be found to justify the article's retention, it should not be kept. GNG can't just be ignored because the studio is notable, see WP:INHERIT. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now, you know that's not true! 90% of films made in the 20s/30s/40s/50s aren't notable today. Go to any person and ask them to name 10 films from those decades and you'll have a hard time finding anyone who can. Films are notable if they were EVER notable, not just still notable. When was the last time you heard anyone talk about The Menace (1932 film)? It's not notable today, but was when it was released. But according to your logic, you would have it deleted. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is a terrible example. The Menace has significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that significant coverage of this short exists, and just vaguely claiming "it was notable when it aired" without providing any evidence of said coverage or notability is not persuasive. And unlike this article, The Menace actually has references to contemporary newspapers showing SIGCOV, which is not met at the article we are actually discussing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have a paid subscription to newspapers.com and I searched that time period. All articles referring to the short only had a quick trivial mention about it airing before a theatrical film. SL93 (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • And newspapers.com has every newspaper ever printed online? Every magazine? Every periodical? Every book? It is not the end all, be all of sources. Just because you 'say' you looked, doesn't mean anything. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I never said any of those things. It certainly means a lot when you don't have anything to show that it passes the notability guideline other than assumptions that this specific short is notable. SL93 (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • They were so HUGE and from a MAJOR studio that this one wasn't even covered by newspapers when it was released. "They aren't meant to remove films/shorts from the classic Hollywood era that doesn't have the coverage of their time archived online."<citation needed> SL93 (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG, redirect to Woody Woodpecker filmography. Binksternet (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Entry is notable for being the final entry in the first phase of the series. The article lists many notable items but needs better sourcing.Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am once again asking for sources with significant coverage that demonstrate notability. None of the keep supporters have identified a single source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A "final entry in the first phase of the series" is not a source of notability. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I beg to differ, I think that is significant, as the next film was 2 years later and had a redesign of Woody. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm pretty sure that Binksternet means Wikipedia notability which this article still doesn't meet. SL93 (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Close to a consensus here (disregarding !votes which aren't aligned with policy), but relisting to try and achieve one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Woody Woodpecker filmography. From when I've looked at U.S. newspapers from the 1940s and 1950s, typically the feature films were the ones identified in the movie ads and discussed in reviews, while the accompanying short films were much less noticed. It's possible that other, more specialized, publications of that era gave significant coverage to the cartoon shorts, but I'm not just going to assume the existence of reliable sources with significant coverage (as called for by WP:NFILM) with regard to this specific film before those sources are found. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Woody Woodpecker filmography#1949 - There are currently not enough coverage in sources listed in the article to pass either the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, and no additional examples of significant coverage in reliable sources has been presented in this AFD. The argument that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is invalid in a deletion discussion unless those sources can actually be demonstrated to exist. Redirecting to the main filmography article is a reasonable compromise, and if any sources are eventually found that provides significant coverage of this short film, the article can easily be restored then. Rorshacma (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BD2412 T 01:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Visit Guide[edit]

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

Non notable travel company. Most of the references are press releases or self published. Seems to be an obvious case of WP:COI as the editor only seems to be creating articles on associated companies recently including Visit Ventures Jupitus Smart 18:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: :Dear Jupitus, this might seems fishy to you, but in my country we do not have many success stories to follow, i'm not a fan of this particular startup/app/company but more like it is the only one who dared to challenge the system here, they are working without the so-called travel license which was invented by our government and being sold for millions, and inside our social media we really talk about these stories, however the official sources or links i added as sources are not Press Releases, Arabic is my main language and i assure you there are not Press Releases at all, they are normal coverage.
Your can also see my article about The White Days which is also very popular and it is a prove that my main focus is not as you said, however i admit that i care for this startup and any other startup in my region and that is why i can work on the article to improve it even further and to add extra sources by doing an extra research. El Prime 11:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe i can improve it and add other sources, it is true it is a startup and the timeline idea might not be the best, however i have been following the progress of this app for a while.
    The encyclopedic value behind the whole thing is a related to the ecosystem in our region and how it reacts to individual startups, the way they made success by moving away from Egypt into a monopoly-free environment is important for this generation and the next one, Startups should not be controlled by governments and this is why we should understand that Wikipedia should not focus only on Corporations and their stories El Prime 12:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Dear @Elprime: Wikipedia is not the place for recording timelines of companies that are coming up. I would however urge you to continue improving the article in any manner you possibly can during the course of this discussion as other editors will only be assessing the article's eligibility to remain based on the latest available iteration of the article. I would also like to know why you would be 'hanged' for creating this article in the Arabic Wikipedia and why you feel the same fate will not await you for creating the article here. In case there exists a credible risk, I would not suggest undertaking the risk for company fluff like this. Jupitus Smart 13:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Jupitus Smart I made some edits and improved it a little bit, in the Arabic version we have pro-gov editors that will take anything down that does not seem right for the country's image, however this is the truth of how startups are being treated and how innovation is being rewarded.
Thanks for your support and i will keep improving the article until during this voting/discussion process.
El Prime 13:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elprime (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment according to the article, the company is Egyptian/British. According to Companies House, Visit Ventures Ltd in the UK was dissolved by compulsory strike-off in March this year. This is usually the fate of a company that has lost all its assets to the extent that its management no longer have any interest in retaining any part of it. It is not normal for notable companies to get bits of themselves struck off. Of course it may be a different company, but it listed its business as web portals, tour operators and travel agency, which matches the expected. This doesn't affect whatever business activities might exist Egypt. Elemimele (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @Elemimele Sorry for the delay, the climate is changing here in Egypt and weather is not stable but i made a search to verify whither Visit Ventures LTD is Egyptian or not and here is what i found i two languages.
    https://visit.guide/en/page/about-us
    https://visit.guide/ar/page/about-us
    I also verified the credibility by checking Internet Archive ( History ) of the page and it has been like that for a long time, so Visit Ventures exist here in our country but Visit Guide exist in United Kingdom of Britain. El Prime 18:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    Okay, so this is the situation: Visit Ventures Ltd (in the UK) was a company (since struck off) in the business of web-portals, tour-operating, and travel agency, established by IBRAHIM, Shehab Ahmed, an Egyptian. It may have nothing to do with Visit Guide Ltd in the UK, which has two officers, presumably a single person, SHEHATA, Shehab Ahmed Ibrahim Ahmed (also Egyptian; I note a similarity of name but this may be a different individual), and the same listed nature of business. Visit Guide Ltd has the same company number as the one in your source, Elprime (talk · contribs), but became incorporated on 10 Dec 2020 with a total capital of £92. It has not posted any update/accounts since. On this basis it is very hard to consider the UK end of the enterprise as notable; I suspect it is WP:TOOSOON. Your source was honest and helpful in tracing what's going on at the UK end, but cannot of itself establish notability as it's the company's own description of themselves. We really need some 3rd-party, independent source. I'm ashamed to say I cannot read Arabic so I cannot assess what's going on at the Egyptian end of things. Elemimele (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, just the usual PR-derived articles based on company announcements. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, for failing WP:NCORP. I note from the history section that they received a trademark in late 2021. It is late 2021; this lends credence to WP:TOOSOON. Ifnord (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Traditionalist Catholicism. Content which does not already appear there may be merged at user discretion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indult Catholic[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Indult Catholic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As was noted back in 2015 on the article talk page, the subject of the article has no RS mentioning it. As of today, 2021, I could find no RS mentioning it, further proving that this article does not meet the notability criteria. There was a recent production of articles on the Tridentine Mass and its history after the publication of Traditionis custodes; despite this, I found no RS talking about "indult Catholics".
Other non-RS sources containing the expression in addition to those noted in 2015 can be found at wikt:Citations:indult Catholic and on Urban Ditionary; so maybe, as was suggested back in 2015 on the talk page, a Wiktionary entry on the subject could be created. One thing is sure, the subject does not meet the requirements to have a Wikipedia article. Veverve (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect -- the subject is covered briefly in Indult and more fully in Traditionis custodes. The present article appears to be obsolete in that it has not been altered to reflect the latest papal decision. Possibly just delete if there really is no RS for the term, but I still think a redirect would be better. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Peterkingiron: There is no RS for this term, I have searched far and wide. If there is a redirect, that would require the article to mention the expression "indult Catholic", which is impossible as there is no RS mentioning it. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A rename may be in order, but this is a very real phenomena that covers a couple of million Catholics and is a far bigger subject than Traditionis Custodes or the particular indults or traditional orders. JASpencer (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JASpencer: Have you tried WP:HEYMANN the article before deciding to keep it? Veverve (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean improve the article? The issue at the moment is time. When I have the time I'll look at it. It was created more than ten years ago and it is bound to have things that can be done to improve on it - but I've got a full time job. JASpencer (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added more sources, updated the situation with Summorum Pontificum and Traditionis Custodes, put in some context and criticism and changed the lead to be a bit more understandable and less loaded. Could do with a different name for this clear phenomena. JASpencer (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment GScholar has two hits, in a Slavic language (Russian?), not sure how useful they are. Nothing in GBooks. Oaktree b (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist to try and find consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Traditionalist Catholicism. As JASpencer said, this is a real phenomena (as evidenced by the sources provided), and I think the information in the article should be WP:PRESERVED, but the term "Indult Catholic" doesn't appear to have enough coverage for its own article and the phenomenon may be better covered in the broader context of Traditionalist Catholicism. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps. Consensus seems clear that there is not enough significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to support having a standalone article. clpo13(talk) 03:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Argonne Rebels Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]


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

A new editor is objecting to my merge to List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps. Insufficient coverage to justify a stand-alone article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to fail general notabilityt guideline particularly on third party reliable sources. The coverage might be available, but as written I don't see it. Maybe userify is the option or editing. If it's deleted, I wouldn't oppose re-creqation once the article is better sourced. I'm not particularly enthusiastic about personally doing the research, but if it were introduced and presented I would have no problem changing my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's hard to evaluate some of the sources, like the Vickers text, which doesn't have an online link. Others, like the Kansas Humanities Council link, have suffered link rot. The DCXMuseum link is just scores—routine coverage per WP:GNG.
    What I keep wrestling with is that this would be enough coverage for an active corps, and notability is not temporary. So that's why I'm leaning keep.
    In any case, deletion is the worst possible outcome for the article. I would rather see it sent to draft space for incubation, with a redirect preserved to List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps and the merged material there preserved, than to have it deleted outright. (Note: File:Argonnelogo.jpg should also be moved, and have its rationale moved, to the list if this article goes out of mainspace.) —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC) !vote superseded 18:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a comment about non-free content use since moving the infobox image was mentioned above. There would be pretty much no way to justify the infobox image’s non-free use in the list article per WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS and it’s unlikely a consensus could be established to do so at WP:FFD. So, if the consensus here is to redirect or merge into this to list article, the image shouldn’t be moved along with it. — Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Marchjuly: Thanks for the heads-up about that. I just nominated about a half-dozen other logos from the list article through FFD. —C.Fred (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article should be tagged for cleanup, not deleted per Introduction to deletion process. The shortcomings of the Argonne article pointed out by contributors to this page (e.g., ‘link rot’) are valid, and can be addressed It is possible that sufficient coverage can be found to keep this page as a stand-alone.Pommerenke (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs further input from established editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions by externally canvassed IP's prior to semi-protect; note does include some proposed sources.
  • Keep: Argonne was one of only 13 members of the Drum Corps International in 1972. The editor/deleter/merger made an arbritray decision to merge this historical page with NO input from any member. Following are just a few of the citations. Many more can be found in Facebook under files and documents.
A History of Drum & Bugle Corps, Vol. 2; Steve Vickers, ed.; Drum Corps World, pub.; 2003
"Argonne Rebels Drum And Bugle Corps, Great Bend Kansas". Archived from the original on June 3, 2011. Retrieved December 29, 2014.
Keep: Fleetwood Records, Fall 1971 - Vinyl recording of 5.0 (perfect brass execution performance score) awarded only to Argonne and one other corps. 136.35.175.77 (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Drum Corps International - A Workable Solution Source: Drum Corps News, Vol. XI, No.23, December 8, 1971 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argonne73 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"History for Argonne Rebels". Retrieved December 29, 2014.
"Rural Kansas Tourism - Great Bend Exploration". Retrieved December 29, 2014.
"Rebels with a Corps". Kansas Humanities Council. February 23, 2015. Retrieved July 8, 2017.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Argonne73 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 23 Nov 2021 (UTC)
— Argonne73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Please Keep. This corps is a founding member of Drum Corps International, and the preservation of this corps must be kept! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:883:4200:6690:78C9:20B:133E:D9D3 (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - one of the founding member corps of DCI and their history needs to be preserved. Memory is cheap for storage, memories of drum corps fans are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.187.146.129 (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
American Legion Champions announced - September 1971
https://www.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR2UvMVN9nCZA4dqWmtUX--Z7WFp2lQUzIO58ekIZlBon3cSiQ4c_5e999U&v=idsysyPllwo&feature=youtu.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argonne73 *(talk • contribs) 02:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the mention in DCI Today is glowing, it is also passing: a single sentence. That is not significant coverage per WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Argonne73: One !vote per user, please; do not start subsequent comments with any text that looks like a recommendation of what to do with the article (keep, delete, draftify, redirect, blow up and start again...). —C.Fred (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Argonne73: Hi there! I don't see how these two YouTube videos demonstrate Wikipedia's definition of "notability". For what it's worth, you can search the Vickers book on Google Books, but unfortunately it doesn't show complete pages. Also, thank you for declaring your conflict of interest at User talk:力. You should also declare it on your own user page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Argonne73: I added and archive-url for the "History for Argonne Rebels" corpsreps.com link on the article. There seems to be a expanded history now at http://www.dcxmuseum.org/index.cfm?view=corpslist&CorpsID=5 which is based on the Vickers book. I don't see any mention of Argonne at getruralkansas.org - maybe you can find it. I also added an archive-url for the Kansas Humanities Council article. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep history; merge content into and turn page into redirect to List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps. After reviewing things the past several days, I am convinced that this corps does not need a stand-alone article. However, information about it should be merged into the list article on defunct DCI corps, and we should keep the edit history of this page for edit reasons. Notionally, that's a keep outcome, but I want to make it clear that I do not think that this article should survive as a stand-alone article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: this discussion was canvassed on a Facebook group with a clear pro-Argonne position; I personally viewed the post, which encouraged people to come here and stack the !vote. See WP:CANVASS. Therefore, I have semi-protected this discussion to prevent further disruption, and will move all non-autoconfirmed contributions to the talk page hat all non-autoconfirmed contributions above. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Content moved. Daniel (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC) Content hatted. Daniel (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps for now (assuming that list meets WP:NLIST). There are five sources in this article and four of them are not reliable, independent, secondary sources. The only source that could be (A History of Drum & Bugle Corps) is not easily accessible so I can't say if it gives it WP:SIGCOV. Anyway, its just one source, and WP:GNG requires multiple.VR talk 04:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above comments which make a lot of sense. Cullen328 (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect Notable enough for mention in the list, not notable enough for it's own article. BSMRD (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources aren't great, but [85], coverage in Emporia Gazette and a few similar articles indicate that there is wider coverage. Nothing great and nothing new, but still above the WP:N bar IMO. Hobit (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as proposed above. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources in the article or in searches. What is available to be examined that is reliable is either not significant or not reliable and vice-versa. The sources presented since this discussion began are not convincing evidence of WP:N, being either the blog of a humanities council or very local coverage, but they are enough to preserve the edit history through redirecting. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://www.dci.org/news/argonne-rebels-subject-of-new-smithsonian-exhibit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argonne73 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - sourcing appears to largely be passing or trivial local coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Miniapolis 23:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, I guess. I think we're ready for closing. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia–Spain relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This article is largely based on the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and lacks third party coverage. No embassies, state visits, trade is insignificant. One agreement in 40 odd years of relations. LibStar (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_November_29&oldid=1059671750"