Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 17 December 19 >

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dead fairy hoax (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)

At what threshold does a hoax or meme find notability? Wikipedia describes hoax as "a widely publicized falsehood so fashioned as to invite reflexive, unthinking acceptance by the greatest number of people." I am not seeing evidence that this hoax was notable beyond a single circular BBC article mentioned here http://www.danbaines.com/derbyshire-mummified-fairy. Then the question is whether or not similar articles are either notable or encyclopedic e.g. Tourist_guy? What is the consensus? Flibbertigibbets (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seem like a notable incident
  1. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dead-fairy/
  2. https://account.charlotteobserver.com/paywall/subscriber-only?resume=198862434&intcid=ab_archive
  3. https://londonist.com/2015/04/fortean-london-a-mummified-fairy-and-arabian-tales
  4. https://www.courier-tribune.com/story/news/nation-world/2018/02/08/did-nc-man-find-skeletal-proof-that-pixies-existed/15282836007/
  5. https://www.artforum.com/print/201701/women-s-history-museum-65377
Plus many more. Just search "dan baines" and "fairy" in Google and press the news tab. CT55555(talk) 01:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Amazon Luna games[edit]

List of Amazon Luna games (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 list for video games available for an upcoming streaming service / gaming subscription. WP:NOTCATALOG. See previous AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PlayStation Now games and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Xbox Game Pass games. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 23:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Sergecross73:, sorry for my late reply. You're right, those are platform-specific, but Luna is still a cloud gaming subscription service with a changing selection of games available, so I'm thinking they're still fairly similar. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I get why the PS Now article was deleted, but to me, this feels more comparable to the list of Google Stadia games, which closed as keep in 2020. Sergecross73 msg me 19:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I do see your point, Stadia was treated as a separate platform by reliable sources. As far as I can tell, Luna will be cloud-based game subscription service. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that they were the exact same sort of thing put on by rival corporations. Why should the payment method (paying for individual title versus flat monthly payment) make a difference? Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not the payment method perse, but its rotating selection of available games for streaming. Or have I misunderstood Stadia? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it's more about the difference between Luna and something like PS Now. I get it when it's PS Now, where it's games from the PS4 library rotating in and out of streaming availability. We don't need to track that, we've got the PS4 game library list. But Luna games don't float in and out of some sort of Amazon game library. Either they're on Luna streaming, or they're not available through Amazon's gaming platform in any capacity. I think that's my hangup. If I'm wrong, anyone feel free to correct me. I don't use any of these streaming services. Sergecross73 msg me 23:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sex change (disambiguation). Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sex change[edit]

Sex change (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)

Sex change does not seem to contain anything other than forked content from other articles. Per WP:SIF--Geysirhead (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Sex change (disambiguation). Currently this article is redundant with the better articles linked there, and is trying to be about two separate things. Crossroads -talk- 23:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. That option is a violation of policy. Georgia guy (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Which policy do you have in mind? I'd be inclined to support this option if it is not prohibited by policy as it allows the reader to see the whole range of articles with names relevant to this phrase and to choose which one they want. As such it seems like the most reliable option for ensuring that the reader eventually ends up at the correct article for their needs and far better than sending them off to a specific article which may or may not be what they were looking for. DanielRigal (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sex change (disambiguation). Checking the traffic for the linked articles shows nearly equal numbers for Sequential hermaphroditism and Sex reassignment therapy, indicating that there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and a disambig is therefore warranted as the base topic per WP:NOPRIMARY. PianoDan (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sex change (disambiguation). The current article is sort of a poor disambiguation already in that it covers multiple unrelated topics and then links off to their existing articles for more complete coverage. We have no way of knowing which topic the reader is interested in. Sending them to the disambiguation is the best option as that offers them the complete range of articles that they might want without unnecessary complication. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the disambiguation page as suggested above. This article currently inappropriately combines disparate topics that should be—and indeed, are—covered separately. It's a bit like writing a limb replacement article that covers both limb regeneration and prosthetic limbs. I must say I'm curious as to which policy Georgia guy believes redirecting this would violate. TompaDompa (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per Czar's rationale regarding potential draftify in future. Daniel (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic elements of Roman Republic[edit]

Democratic elements of Roman Republic (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 not written like encyclopedic entry (written more like an essay or magazine article WP:INDISCRIMINATE), requires fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. This is one of the few cases I would say "delete and start over". I suggest draftifying the article so that we can pick and choose details that might be worth keeping and determine what should be cleaned out. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 22:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify, concur that the article is an unsalvegable mess that needs a WP:TNT and a retitling at the very least in order to bring it up to even the "slap fifty tags on it" stage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probable delete or draftify. Weird that this hasn't come up before—never seen this article, and it's been around since 2006! It certainly does read like an essay—although just a quick skim suggests that it's in serious need of editing just for flow and clarity—and has no sources cited for anything, in a topic that ought to be easily cited. And that title—how can an article this size go for over a decade without anyone noticing that it needs an article ("the") in the title in order not to stick out like a sore thumb? This has to be one of the strangest attempts at an article I've ever seen on Wikipedia, simply because it's survived since 2006 with all these issues—and apparently been edited regularly over that time!
That said, looking through the article's history, it was originally split off from another article, and while it reads like an essay and lacks any sources, all of this should be citable, and (just a quick skim) appears to be covering a valid topic. I would have thought this would be covered in other, existing articles, but I don't know whether it is. Aasim's suggestion of draftifying in order to salvage it, either as a stand-alone article or by merging its contents into other relevant articles, is appealing. Maybe there's nothing here that isn't covered elsewhere, but it would be a good idea to make sure. Is Aasim volunteering to have a look? P Aculeius (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:TNT. I was considering a redirect to Roman Republic#Constitutional system but there is nothing sourced to merge! And we shouldn't draftify an article unless users specifically intend to work on it. If anyone intends to work from this in the future (again not sure why they would with zero sources cited), the article can be restored to draftspace at that time. Any article on democracy in Rome should split from the parent article summary style. czar 23:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robertsbridge Community College[edit]

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

Marked unreferenced for years. All the mention I've found about the school are trivial mentions (like in this BBC article) or an item within a list (like in this book), so the subject does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Since neither of the two major contributors are active in the past four months, I felt that it'll be more appropriate to have a deletion discussion instead of using prod. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to So Far, So Good... So What!. Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jane (Megadeth song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song that was deleted at AfD some years back (although kept a year later), reverted to a redirect some years later, and recently reverted back to a redirect for the same reason, yet it still exists as a continually recreated article.

After removing the entirely non-RS (such as instagram and twitter, among others), you're left with either database entries, news posts that don't actually reference the song or passing mentions falling far short of WP:SIGCOV. Not seeing any indication of notability here but needs a community consensus due to the continual recreations. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to the album page and lock editing so this stops happening. Clearly not notable, especially with how long it's been around with the opportunity to find good sources which do not appear to exist. QuietHere (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you paid any attention, you would have seen the "in use" tag. I am not done with the page. Wait for me to finish to judge it. You don't eat a cake that's still in the oven. BoxxyBoy (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, please stop removing the AFD tag too early when the discussion is in progress. If it fails WP:NSONGS, then it redirected to So Far, So Good... So What! and salted from ever recreating it. Let the AFD tag to be remained here, and also Serge says, Discogs is failed WP:USERG and it should not be used as a source. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:C91D:C1F3:FE4A:88A9 (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stop ADDING the tag early. Wait until the page has been finished. BoxxyBoy (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make the article then, draftify it, avoid USERG sources, uses sources in the list of sources per the WP:RSMUSIC. Bungle nominated it the article for deletion for repeatedly recreating the article a day ago and tagged for AFD, you need to calm down. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:C91D:C1F3:FE4A:88A9 (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i was told to either put "in use" or "under construction" while working on a page. you dont even have an account BoxxyBoy (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "in use" template is only meant to be used for a very short period and the template usage states that it can (and generally should) be removed if no edits have been made for a couple of hours. It isn't an invincibility cloak that stops anyone else from making an edit, nominating etc. Besides, Scope creep made clear their edits in edit summaries and you reverted back to the poor citations without consideration these were sub-standard. You had enough opportunity to demonstrate viability, even before you reverted the redirect a second time. Once an article is nominating for deletion, discussion or however you wish to consider it, the tag remains for the duration of that discussion. Improvements can me made during that time but ultimately the decision will be made on merit and in accordance with notability policy. Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, some years ago: a consensus made 15 years ago when there wasn't many sources to be found is one that needs to be re-evaluated. BoxxyBoy (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hence, we are having a fresh discussion because each of the former discussions were considerably far back in time that they can't be relevant today. Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A good chunk of sources in the article are about the song itself. I have removed the remaining unreliable sources (Setlist.FM and Discogs were already taken off). 15 of the 31 sources in the article are specifically and solely about the song, with 8 of them going very in depth. The song is very clearly notable. It was released as a single, charted in two countries, and has fairly significant coverage. BoxxyBoy (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as we're now having to deal with a WP:REFBOMB situation, perhaps you could bullet point just a handful of these citations which are all of:
  • WP:RELIABLE (so not from blogs or user-generated fan sites etc)
  • WP:SECONDARY (thus not from the band's own website or websites affiliated with them)
  • WP:SIGCOV (more than just a passing mention)
As it stands, you're the only editor to express a desire to keep (not surprising), but several have expressed concerns about the article's viability. Bombing the article with significant "references" which don't support all the points I mentioned above just makes me more concerned that credible citations don't exist, or exist in insufficient numbers. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:REFBOMB situation here. You seem to just be ignorant. (REMOVED) BoxxyBoy (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow WP:NPA - don't call people ignorant. There are some valid points being made here - a lot of these sources don't help the song meet the WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. But there's not nothing here either.
To count towards meeting the GNG, the sources must be "third party" - meaning not from the band/label themselves. So that throws out everything sourced to social media or megadeth.com - which is a fair amount. And unless something significant is said in the album reviews - passing mentions from reviews aren't enough to avoid a merge/redirect back to the album article.
That said, once you trim away all of that, there's still a couple sources left. The Ultimate Guitar article is from a RS and is in good detail. Blabbermouth is listed at WP:RSMUSIC as well. Loudersound is a reliable source, but doesn't even mention the song by name, so that doesn't help. Some of these "sleaze rock" or "Metal Jacket Magazine"...I've never heard of. And there's no consensus on them at WP:RSMUSIC. Probably doesn't bode well for reliability, but isn't an auto-fail. Its up to you to explain why they would be reliable and significant in the Wikipedia-sense. 3
As is, you've basically got a Ultimate Guitar and Blabbermouth source in your favor. 2 is the absolutely bare minimum for meeting the GNG, but often a hard sell to convince people it shouldn't be merged/redirected... Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"(P)assing mentions from reviews aren't enough to avoid a merge/redirect back to the album article." Those aren't there to avoid it being redirceted. That's just added information, which is sometimes a thing I include when writing articles, like in A Little Piece of Heaven (song). I would have put it there if it was marked for deletion or not. BoxxyBoy (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And that's fine. But this isn't some sort of peer review of general content, it's a deletion discussion where we try to determine whether or not a subject should retain its article. Passing mentions don't factor into that. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I am trying to help you to convey what is necessary in a discussion like this, i'd appreciate not being inferred as "ignorant". Besides, you have now just refbombed this afd - that is not what I advised. I suggested bullet points of just a handful (and it only needs a handful) that meet all of the criteria I mentioned above. A cursory look at just the first few indicate to me that they do not meet the criteria. Secondary references also need to be WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject, so blogs or posts by members or ex-members don't count towards notability either, nor do almost entire interviews with individuals close to the subject. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"nor do almost entire interviews with individuals close to the subject". The articles, like the Q&A's, are about the meaning of the song. Is that not okay to use? BoxxyBoy (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're okay to use for adding content to the article, per WP:PRIMARY, but they're not good for arguing that a subject is notable. Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well there are at least 3 articles that aren't strictly interviews. And it charted in two countries. What would you do to improve the page? I'd rather it didn't get redirected. BoxxyBoy (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The song is clearly notable. Can we close this AFD, please? BoxxyBoy (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation so far is that you're the only one wanting this to be an article, while several support a redirect. There needs to be more firmer expressions though, so I can understand Liz's relist. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How was that your take away from the discussion above? Are you actually reading and understanding the policies and guidelines you're being informed of above? Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am. I removed unreliable sources and kept only the important things. The song has WP:SIGCOV, and has charted in two countries.BoxxyBoy (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge - there's just very little of substance to be said, part of which being because it gets very little dedicated independent coverage on its own. Better covered in the context of its respective album, like so much of its coverage is. Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to So Far, So Good... So What!. Fails WP:NSONG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Caddell[edit]

AfDs for this article:
John A. Caddell (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 am seeing lots of boards and organizational memberships in this bio, but none that meet WP:NPOL or the WP:GNG more generally. BD2412 T 21:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 21:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two listings from AL.com mentioning him in a Hall of Fame, but I can't see anything we can use for GNG. Appears to have been promotional until he passed away, reads like a beefed up linkedin article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I feel like an idiot, as I've spent the past 30 minutes clipping newspaper.com clips for the wrong person. Apparently there is another John A. Caddell who also operated in Alabama at about the same time. This John A. Caddell appears to still be alive as recent as 2017, and I would say he seems to be a notable construction magnate [1][2]. I found some clippings of the relevant John ([3][4]), but nothing too great in the realm of WP:SIGCOV,, so I would also argue delete, with a possible re-create for the other John A. Caddell. Curbon7 (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG Jinian (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus of established editors below exists to delete the article. Daniel (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giannis–Harden rivalry[edit]

Giannis–Harden rivalry (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, while including many sources, is a product of original research. The extent of this "rivalry" is trivial and most sources have nothing to do with this alleged "rivalry". Few reliable sources have discussed the "rivalry" in detail. User:Namiba 19:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can show you several sources that specifically call it a "Giannis and Harden rivalry", would that be enough to support that there is a rivalry? MasterMatt12 (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or called a fued instead of a rivalry. MasterMatt12 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://behindthebuckpass.com/2021/06/04/giannis-antetokounmpo-rivalry-james-harden/
https://www.sportskeeda.com/basketball/rumor-nba-trade-rumors-a-complete-history-feud-james-harden-potential-teammate-giannis-antetokounmpo
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbareturn29560382/the-evolution-james-harden-giannis-antetokounmpo-feud
https://www.complex.com/sports/james-harden-giannis-antetokounmpo-feud-timeline
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/giannis-vs-harden-a-budding-personal-rivalry-the-mismatch/id1109271715?i=1000466989580
https://www.si.com/nba/bucks/old-school/revisiting-the-giannis-antetokounmpo-james-harden-rivalry
https://localtoday.news/pa/revisiting-the-rivalry-between-giannis-antetokounmpo-and-james-harden-123735.html
All these sources call it either a fued, or a rivalry, and there is even a podcast about specifically their rivalry. MasterMatt12 (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that this "feud" is mostly just celebrity gossip, thus fitting under WP:NOTNEWS.--User:Namiba 19:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just gossip, there have been many interviews and interactions between the two players. And if this is considered gossip then we should also delete Ronaldo-Messi rivalry because there is also just mostly news reports and social media starting a rivalry between the players because of their skill levels. MasterMatt12 (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Mortenson[edit]

Heidi Mortenson (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 all criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. There is a lack of reliable secondary sources except for routine coverage of a music festival, which does not prove notability. None of the sources cited provide much information (most of them aren't even about her and only mention her) except for the primary sources (an interview); basically, the article would have to consist almost entirely of things she says about herself. It seems none of her albums or singles have charted and all of her music seems to be self-produced and released on her own label. Also, the article has a very promotional tone and is highly biased. Baronet13 (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Denmark. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing for sourcing we can use, she's never charted. I don't see GNG, might be sourcing in Danish language items. Oaktree b (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b: Think you are right about Danish language sources. There are lots more reviews and stories over about her in the Danish media, like these two articles in Information.dk: 1, 2, and this article in Berlingske: 3 (You can also search by setting "site:.dk" as a parameter, although of course that restricts the search to URLs ending with ".dk".) Cielquiparle (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These are just brief reviews and an article that lacks substantive information; I don't think any of these can be considered "significant coverage." If these are the best sources we have, she is not notable.Baronet13 (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I actually found one brief review from a reliable publication: [5], but there is very little else out there and the musician can't meet the significant coverage requirement with just some minor reviews. Otherwise the only visibility is in the usual streaming, self-upload, and social media sites. Note that Mortensen has also recorded under the name Phtalo, but a search under that name reveals more of the same. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EverRise[edit]

EverRise (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)

Seeing a bunch of mentions in cryptocurrency-focused sources (which are not considered reliable by Wikipedia), and a bunch of non-in-depth coverage of capital transactions, but not the kind of sources that would be required to meet WP:NCORP. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. This discussion was pretty evenly split and with a fundamental disagreement on the value of the sources in the article, I think a relisting would just prolong an unnecessary dispute between some editors on the subject of restaurants in Portland. So, I'm closing this one as No Consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fenouil[edit]

Fenouil (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)

Spuriously removed prod. Fails WP:NCORP. Defunct company. No lasting notability. Fails WP:AUD, WP:DEL14. scope_creepTalk 18:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KINGofLETTUCE: If you keep these WP:NPA attacks up, you will end up at first Ani, and when that fails WP:ARBCOM. Make no mistake. No more warnings. scope_creepTalk 21:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol scope_creep KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 00:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Showing your true colours now. What's that supposed to do, intimidate me? It's so rich that somebody who blindly nominated 20 articles all by the same user at one go with barely any justification, can turn around and threaten others with litigation. For what? Calling out behaviour that is patently wikihounding? Ridiculous. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 00:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Clearly meets WP:NCORP. Use of the word spurious shows bad faith on the noms part and should be crossed out per WP:ASPERSIONS. MarnetteD|Talk 18:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a defunct restaurant with no external existance outside this article. Everybody in the world has forgotten about it. There is no lasting historical or cultural impact that this company has made that it makes it special. It is completely non-notable and not worth a jot. The references that are there, do not support a dead company like this, as being notable after it ceases to exist. Not only that, knowhere on Wikipedia does it state that we are directory of dead companies, i.e. per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Lastly i'm not removing spurious because the editor Kingoflettuce is on a WP:NPA strop in the other Afd's and and removed the prod in a fit of pique. If the editor keeps it up, they are going to be blocked. scope_creepTalk 21:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "A fit of pique" is going to one user's list of articles created and happily nominating the top x number of articles for deletion. I have every right to decline to PROD if it's in, my very reasonable estimation, a case of hounding. You can't throw a fuss just because things don't go your way. Yeah, sure, you've been in thousands of AfD, good for you, but that really doesn't mean anything much. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 00:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maybe one or two sources from the Oregonian that are RS, I don't see much extensive coverage beyond that. Fodor's mentions them but I wouldn't consider it very extensive. Could perhaps. redirect to the former owner if they're notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I've expanded the article to include 17 additional citations. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Searching "Fenouil Portland Chureau" at Lexis yields 199 results, including 138 published by The Oregonian, 11 published by the Portland Business Journal, and 4 published by the Statesman Journal. I'm unable to share URLs so I would encourage editors to access the database if possible. Of course, Chureau was not chef the entire time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ɱ (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are 30 sources in the article, including one from the NYT and a couple of book mentions. — Jacona (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm striking my keep. I had done a newspapers.com search and thought I found a lot of stuff, but it was the exact same article repeated over and over, republished for months. Jacona (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The New York Times article does not fulfill the criterion for having one in-depth source from outside of the locality. It's a brief mention in a suggested itinerary and hence does not constitute WP:SIGCOV. Rupples (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SIGCOV and WP:N in general make no mention of locality, so this is false. ɱ (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Think I picked this up from User:Valeree's comment in the Daily Doughnut AfD. Yes. Here: [[6]]. This suggested to me that an 'outside of the locality' source is a criterion applied when evaluating notability for restaurants in AfDs. At any rate, we're looking at WP:NCORP and WP:SIRS in addition to WP:N, are we not? Are you claiming the NYT mention of Fenouil amounts to in-depth coverage? Rupples (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The mention isn't sigcov. It certainly does show that Fenouil is on the radar outside of the local area, though. IMO it helps, and if we're looking at a restaurant that just needs one...leetle...push to get over the notability hump, this might convince me. Note that I haven't looked at all the sources, so I'm not commenting on whether or not that's where this subject is. Valereee (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references appear to be standard coverage for a fine-dinning restaurant in the Portland area. They fail to demonstrate significant coverage of Fenouil. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statewide news coverage is not common for any "fine-dinning" restaurant. So this is false. ɱ (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NTEMP Lightburst (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG and AUD (disclaimer: article creator). Subject has received significant coverage. The Oregonian is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. The newspaper is a major regional publication and should not be treated the same as the Portland Business Journal, Portland Mercury, etc. I can assure you the vast majority of restaurants in Portland or Oregon do not receive similar coverage, so please stop with the "local" and "routine" nonsense. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passed WP:GNG and WP:42, and at this point this is a behavior discussion and not an editorial discussion. At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon#AfD_/_PROD article creator AB makes a case which I interpret to be a misconduct compliant. Anyone can AfD this again later, but for now, default to keep for misconduct concerns. There is no reason to nominate this many articles, all from the same person, when discussion is already well-attended and fruitful, during an English Wikipedia holiday season, when the article creator has been posting "please leave me alone" to multiple deletion nominations. There are enough sources here to presume editorial integrity; if there is a problem then raise it again at a reasonable pace after a reasonable amount of time. The AfD process should not be available for use by a nominator who fails to address another editor's request to be left alone. I am not accusing the AfD nominator here; misconduct can be an error and not intentional. I am just saying cool it, slow down, and regroup with some moderator guidance. The conduct problem is a barrier to legitimate discussion here. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have copied this exact same text across from the other Afd or vice versa. Is that the level of your involvment? No interest in discussing the article. Merely a partisan attack with no intellectual thought of what constitutes a notable article? Its a grist for the mill. scope_creepTalk 13:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is what is happening here is several editors who are going through the references and trying to determine exactly what meets WP:NCORP. Most of these references fail for various reasons, but mostly because they are no longer viable per the new NCORP standard. The other side will post links to references and cite from WP:GNG that the sources are reliable and independent and not talk in any discussion around the fact that they fail NCORP. AFD cannot be a debate when one side completely ignores established policy and can't demonstrate any knowledge of the NCORP guidelines, nor the fact that the NCORP guidelines are stricter than many other guidelines. This has been a fact since 2018. The main takeaway is that the Keep !voters fail to show the references meet NCORP. At the end, it always seems to come down a !vote counting exercise where all arguments are accepted whether they are valid or not. That is total head in the sand think and is particularly worrisome and frustrating when they're is conensus on this, which is being ignored. scope_creepTalk 13:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Give it a rest... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 14:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 18:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gentiana Lushtaku[edit]

Gentiana Lushtaku (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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Flipmode Squad. Daniel (talk) 18:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Have Mercy (rapper)[edit]

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

No evidence this passing WP:NM. Sources are not independent or reliable with in-depth coverage. This was previously a redirect which should be restored. MB 16:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. MB 16:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. This guy co-wrote a hit song in 1999 with his Flipmode Squad homies ("Come Get It" by DJ Hurricane[7] which appeared in the film Whiteboys) but the media have not written about him in depth. Redirect to Flipmode Squad. Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects are cheap. If additional sources are created/found, the article can be easily created. In the meantime, LHM doesn't pass any notability guideline with the extant sources. Jacona (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 18:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SecMsg[edit]

SecMsg (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 is about an obsolete program that reads like an ad, has only 3 citations all from Indian newspapers, and is not notable at all. It was also deleted before.Aydroow (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To.get.her[edit]

To.get.her (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:NFILM. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yusef Abdeselam Kaddur[edit]

Yusef Abdeselam Kaddur (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)

Doesn't meet notability Nswix (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 14:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunado-class tug[edit]

Dunado-class tug (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. Trivial mention in a diagram. Not listed in Janes 2004 and 2015 (although the tug listing there states "The vessels below represent a cross-section of the craft available."; so perhaps exists but also not judged notable enough by Janes.) - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 23:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 14:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chayanon Khamkan[edit]

Chayanon Khamkan (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)

Looks to fail WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC based on my searches. A Thai search yielded nothing better than social media, forum posts and Wikipedia itself. Google News gave me 3 hits, all of which were trivial mentions in TrueID. See 1, 2 and 3. The best coverage is Himsanam but, when translated, the article is little more than a quote on him being happy that he scored a goal. The same website shares another quote from him in another post.

SPORTBASIC requires multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. which is not found above when all I can find is a few instances of the player talking about himself on a Thai football website, which may or may not even be WP:RS (I couldn't see any indication of editorial oversight). Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Thailand. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The brief-though-fairly-in-depth post[9] on the Chiangmaipaemidi Facebook page seems to indicate that it was reproduced from an article by FourFourTwo. FourFourTwo appears to have since discontinued its Thailand coverage, though, so I haven't been able to verify the source. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting post. I'll admit I didn't even look at any of the social media hits as it's usually safe to just assume that it won't be RS. Interesting that they'd write anything about someone playing in the 4th tier of Thailand, though! Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTBASIC explicitly asks for multiple non-trivial sources Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One source is not enough to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG as the Facebook posting of what may be a FourFourTwo article isn't enough to show SIGCOV by itself. Jogurney (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idris Ado Muhammad[edit]

Idris Ado Muhammad (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)

Only one reference which doesn't really show notability. Searching on google provides no pages that can be used as references, only two facebook pages. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 11:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1981 Bandy World Championship squads[edit]

1981 Bandy World Championship squads (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 no indication of how the topic meets WP:LISTN. The one reference used is clearly a primary source and I can't see that any significant, independent coverage is available. I don't see any reason to merge to 1981 Bandy World Championship either since the Sweden squad list is already covered in the template at the bottom of the article and, as of writing this, there are still no Norway, Finland or Soviet Union lists available. I can't think of any guideline or policy-based reason to keep this article. Essentially, it's a navigational list with no notable entries, therefore it doesn't even fulfil a basic navigational purpose anyway and it's redundant when compared against Template:Sweden squad 1981 Bandy World Championship, which is already used in the main article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 13:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vach[edit]

Vach (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)

District of a German town. As such, likely notable and probably also sourceable, see the German language version. But the article has remained unsourced despite a "unsourced" tag since 2009. Unsourced content must either be sourced or deleted, see WP:V, a core policy. Since nobody has provided sources for at least 12 years, the verifiability policy now requires deletion or draftification. Sandstein 10:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 10:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or stubify (with a source confirming existence) are the obvious WP:ATD here; both are preferable to immediate deletion or slow deletiondraftification. I don't see a good reason for this to be at AFD. —Kusma (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It's evident from the German article that this is/was a town with a long history. The nominator deserves a WP:SOFIXIT WP:TROUT for not simply grabbing a cite from the other version, but since I've done so I don't see deletion as an outcome, and I don't think redirecting to Fürth makes sense in any case. Mangoe (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not just going to "grab a cite". That's sloppy editing. Citing sources is done as part of the article-writing process: the source must be reliable, available, must be read by the writer, and reflect the article content. Just copy-pasting citations makes a mockery of our verifiability policy. That's why I think that long unsourced blocks of text are best deleted and rewritten from scratch with citations. Sandstein 08:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Immediate Keep. A deletion discussion for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vach was just closed yesterday with consensus to restore the article about the town. I assumed that @Sandstein: was not aware of that discussion and am puzzled to see that he was actually its closer.Jahaza (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion was about a different article: an article about some blog called "The Vach" that the article about the district was overwritten with. The discussion did not concern the article abut the district. When I restored that article, I noticed its deficiency and therefore started this second AfD. Sandstein 07:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given it was a separate settlement until 1972 it clearly passes WP:GEOLAND. And the German article is well-sourced. AfD is to determine notability of the topic, not quality of the article or its sourcing. This is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duhome[edit]

Duhome (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:NCORP. Most of the references are narrow product reviews mostly in listicles. Per WP:PRODUCTREV, Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources. Other references include non-independent coverage, a file, database, and a routine announcement dependent upon press-release like promotional wording and quotes. My WP:BEFORE found trivial mentions, databases, or product listicles, e.g., 1, 2, but I could not find CORPDEPTH-meeting sources. VickKiang (talk) 09:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No significant coverage of the company. The majority of the references on the article and from my search are listings/reviews for furniture that also include's the company's in questions product. Others are press releases. Lacks secondary independent sources about the company. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete they turn up in various "gifts under X amount of dollars"type articles, nothing about the company. I don't see GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy Van Marchena[edit]

Freddy Van Marchena (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)

Appears to meet neither WP:MUSICIAN nor WP:AUTHOR. The only edited source in the article (Vulture) is an interview, is not about him, and does not mention him. Nor does it appear that he has other sigcov. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a joke from a vandal. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP blocked, should it be struck? VickKiang (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need, because one jokey "merge" vote isn't wrecking the consensus below. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had to revert one of their edits on the 2014 FIFA World Cup final. Probably should have said something, lol. 808pikachu (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dobson, Arizona[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that this is anything but the single non-notable farm that all topos and aerials show it to be. Mangoe (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree. My search did not show anything notable or a legal incorporation for Dobson, Arizona. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeepItGoingForward (talk • contribs) 09:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sign of a community here. –dlthewave ☎ 13:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete I found a Dobson Ranch that used to raise cattle and became a planned community in the 1970s, but it doesn't seem to be at these coordinates, so I am not convinced it's the same thing. And supposing the problem there is a typo in the coordinates somehow, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about the planned community. Elinruby (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Rogers Cable#History. As an ATD. If there is content that is pertinent to the target article, consider merge. Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Cable Internet[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Aurora Cable Internet (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 a defunct small local cable television provider, not properly sourced as passing WP:CORPDEPTH. The only apparent notability claim here is that the company existed, and the only sources are a single CRTC decision and a corporate press release -- and the strongest keep argument in the original discussion from 2005, that it provided some insight into why Aurora was one of the only suburbs in the entire Greater Toronto Area that was still served by an independent local cable provider instead of by Rogers Cable, became moot three years later when the company was acquired by none other than Rogers Cable.
This just doesn't have any notability claim "inherent" enough to withstand how little proper sourcing it has. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bearcat is also reminded that a fact "becoming moot" is not relevant in a Wikipedia deletion discussion per WP:NTEMP. Modernponderer (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said notability was temporary. But if the strongest notability claim that could be concocted at the time was a transient piece of trivia that wasn't even a genuine notability claim in the first place, then that trivia's failure to even remain true at all anymore hardly constitutes permanent notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the concerns raised in the AFD discussion be addressed through the editing of the article to standard. Would integration of the three aforementioned sources improve the article as to justify a "speedy keep" on the part of the nominator? Per AFD guidelines meant to better the platform and provide value to the readership; If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. It is actually much harder to improve an article than to advocate up/down (like an emperor) with an "aggressively toned" dialog in discussion. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note for other editors: This user has been warned for WP:HOUNDING at their talk page (along with a detailed explanation of AfD policy which they dismissed), as they have reposted the same baseless accusations against me on three different pages including this AfD, which they have not otherwise participated in. Modernponderer (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above. If the best that the nominator found in a Proquest search was a "transient piece of trivia" then there is a WP:BEFORE failure. Nfitz (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The transient piece of trivia was the "notability" claim that was made in the previous deletion discussion. And I have never, not once in my entire Wikipedia career, failed to do any BEFORE work. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. We require references that discuss the *company* in detail and as per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. 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. References cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company such as quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews etc.
Seeing as three particular references were put forward as reasons to Keep above, I'll focus on those to highlight their deficiencies in meeting NCORP criteria for establishing notability:
  • This from The Globe and Mail relies entirely on an interview with the founder's daughter, Linda, for the information about the company. Every second sentence attributes the information to her. There are also parts of the article that have nothing in particular to say about the company. Of the parts that deal with the company, there's nothing that I can point to as "Independent Content", no information that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the company. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • This from YorkRegion also relies entirely on a discussion with Linda. When you remove those pieces directly attributed to Linda, the remaining bits lack any in-depth information about the company. Also fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • This from Playback is based entirely on this PR announcement from Rogers. Fails ORGIND.
None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 16:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:HighKing, I was quite surprised to see a "delete" rationale for this article with a detailed analysis of the sources I provided, so I've actually gone back and had a second look at the first two sources in case I had seriously misjudged them. However, I do stand by my assessment, for a few reasons:
  1. I do not think the claim the articles are entirely, or even overwhelmingly, based on interviews is accurate. There are a number of quotations in each, but they are interspersed with non-quoted material. This includes significant amounts of "independent content" (to address your other objection) that is clearly written by the article author, including numerous historical facts and figures about the company and its role in the community that are not attributed to its ownership. The Globe and Mail article actually goes a step further, by explicitly pointing out that some of the figures are its own assessment and not that of the company: While the financial details of the transaction have not been made public, with [...] an industry rule-of-thumb price of about $3,000 a subscriber, the Irvines could be clearing as much as $48-million from the deal.
  2. Even speaking to the interview portion of each article specifically, it is not automatically excluded from WP:GNG consideration. In the list you provided of quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, "interviews" have unlike the others no consensus for blanket exclusion for GNG. This is because an interview is generally not published by the interviewee themselves (as is the case with the other items in that list), but by the interviewer who has ultimate editorial control. There have been multiple highly-contentious discussions about the role of interviews for purposes of Wikipedia notability (some of which I was personally involved in), all of which ultimately ended without consensus as far as I am aware. However, there seems to be broad agreement (as exemplified at Wikipedia:Interviews, which is still only an essay for the exact reason of lacking consensus on the overall issue) that the more editorial oversight an interview has undergone, the more suitable it is for assessing the notability of the article subject. In this case, these are fundamentally articles that happen to contain interview content, not even interviews per se (as often seen in certain magazine sources, etc.), which puts them towards the end of the scale close to "fully acceptable for GNG".
  3. While you are quite correct about the third source (thank you for pointing that out, as I was not aware even the quotations were the same!), I do not think the ProQuest sources found by User:Mindmatrix can simply be dismissed. Even if none of us can access the full content, there is enough metadata there to make an educated guess about both the quantity and quality of articles on the company. In fact it seems to me that WP:PAYWALL actually requires us to take such sources into account: Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access.
Overall, I find that both of the first two sources have significant coverage, and even just on their own that would be sufficient to keep the article as that satisfies the "multiple reliable sources" requirement of GNG. With the addition of the ProQuest sources, I reaffirm my original "strong keep" !vote.
Having done my due diligence in reevaluating my assessment, I would ask if you could please do likewise and consider whether the points I listed are sufficient to change the basis of your !vote. Modernponderer (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Thank you for your detailed response. Just also want to point out that essentially there are two types of reference. There are references that are used to support the facts/information within an article and for those, just about any WP:RS can be used including interviews, etc. The criteria for references used to establish notability is different.
  1. You say that the articles in question are interspersed with non-quoted material that is clearly written by the article author and including significant amounts of "independent content" - I disagree. The content, tone and context of the "non-quoted material" provides no indications of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In fact in may cases the non-quoted material does not contain any in-depth information about the company at all, or when it does it is simply re-stating what was said. It is a very common format that can be found in just about all puff profile pieces. I've looked at each article again, but for me, there is nothing to indicate that the author has contributed any independent opinion/fact checking/analysis/investigation/etc. You've highlighted one particular sentence as an example of "Independent Content" and I can agree that this appears to be the journalist's own opinion - but lets go through the entire article, remove the non-independent content and evaluate the remaining content against NCORP (and WP:CORPDEPTH in particular). If I do that to the articles in question, I really only have the odd sentence here and there remaining and taken together, fails CORPDEPTH.
  2. This is (was) a company, therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply (as well as GNG). Since an interview is not "Independent Content", it is automatically excluded as per WP:ORGIND. In addition, NCORP specifically states that Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability and includes "memoirs or interview by executives" in the list of examples. The essay also makes it clear that a very narrow selection of interviews (e.g. ones that show a depth of preparation such as memoirs, 60 minutes type programs which show secondary opinion/analysis) qualify for establishing notability and as I've already pointed out, none of those publications show any signs of secondary opinion/analysis (or sufficient to then go on to meet CORPDEPTH).
  3. The quantity of sources is irrelevant for establishing notability of companies. As per WP:SIRS, each source must meet all of the criteria. Once we get a minimum of two that meet the criteria, we're happy that the topic meets NCORP.
In summary, you've evaluated the first two sources under GNG, which is not the appropriate guideline for establishing the notability of a company - you should instead evaluate against NCORP, which I have done, and in my opinion they do not meet that threshold. HighKing++ 12:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you in turn for addressing my points. On the fundamental issue, which I see as being "signs of secondary opinion/analysis" as you put it, I think we may just have to agree to disagree. Put simply, to me these articles are not at all unusual among mainstream media coverage in terms of how much commentary they get from a source connected to the subject of discussion, and if we start throwing out otherwise rock-solid sources like this as "not independent" simply for incorporating such opinions we may very well end up deleting half of Wikipedia if not more. It's just an unreasonably high standard in my view, and more importantly one that is not in line with community consensus as I've seen expressed at other AfDs as well as in policy discussions.
However, I would like to bring up a couple of other points from your response, which I do think are factually incorrect and thus worth pointing out:
  • The point that "GNG [...] is not the appropriate guideline for establishing the notability of a company" (as opposed to NCORP) is contradicted by the very lede of WP:N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: (1) It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and (2) It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. The GNG is therefore applicable to all articles, whether there is also an SNG covering them or not, and either (or both) can be used to show an article's notability.
  • I think you misunderstood my point about the ProQuest sources. It's not about the quantity at all – it's that we're dismissing sources with a high potential of contributing to this article's notability for the sole reason that they are behind a paywall, which appears to be explicitly prohibited according to WP:PAYWALL (in some of the strongest language I've ever seen on a Wikipedia policy page – just starting with a blatant "do not", no "should" there).
Overall I do think we're unlikely to agree on this so I won't specifically ask for your response this time, but if you would like to address those additional points in particular please feel free to do so. Modernponderer (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you have a different interpretation of our guidelines (and even which is the appropriate one in this instance) and if we're not even on the same page, we're hardly likely to agree. I'll make some small further points.
  • I agree that the articles referenced in an attempt to establish notability are not "unusual", but I would say in response that most "articles" on companies fail the NCORP criteria for establishing notability of companies. For the most part, unless blatantly obvious, most editors will assume that the sources being analysed are "rock-solid" (i.e. they meet WP:RS). When I bring up "Independent Content" I am not questioning the publication or the journalist in terms of any "functional independence" only "intellectual independence". In most cases the *content* is simply rehashed PR/Announcement/Interview which when you look at the references in this case, is precisely what has happened.
  • It is a long-established consensus (and was even discussed at a recent Arbcom case looking at disruptions at AfD) that NCORP is the appropriate guideline for companies and organizations. The WP:SNG section in GNG which you have referenced confirms this to be the case. Also, it isn't a case that NCORP replaces GNG but that they are both looked at.
  • Nobody has ignored ProQuest sources. PAYWALL is directed toward attempts at rejecting sources which may be used to support *content* in an article because it is behind a paywall. That is not what is happening here. At AfD we are not addressing content issues such as checking sources to see if they support the facts and information within the content of the article, so if your argument is that *all* sources must be looked at before we can reach consensus on notability, you are mistaken.
I appreciate you might not agree with this response but I think you'll find most editors and especially those that spend time at company/organization related AfDs will disagree with your position. HighKing++ 20:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NCORP is the relevant notability standard for a company, and I agree with HighKing's analysis of the sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This seems to be a run-of-the-mill local telecom provider. BD2412 T 03:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is pretty much every cable system's history in North America; start locally, become integrated into a regional provider just for cost efficiency purposes, and eventually it becomes part of a national company because customers just want stability/the same channel lineup/to their email address/not be stuck with a building's own terrible service. There is absolutely nothing special about this one-city cable system, not even as a spite house equivalent. The bulk of the article deals with completely ordinary public access and sports programming you would hope would be carried by a local cable system. Nate • (chatter) 23:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Small internet provider from canada, there really isint much about it. Fails GNG.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 01:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to Rogers Cable#History, who bought out the company. A brief merge could also be considered describing how it was the only cable provider in Aurora. Jumpytoo Talk 22:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is good-faith disagreement over whether the provided sources are enough, and a poor heat:light ratio, which makes relisting a poor option. I suggest resolving scope issues before returning to AfD if needed. This isn't the place for misconduct allegations from anybody; take those to the noticeboards, please. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bit House Saloon[edit]

Bit House Saloon (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)

Defunct restuarant and bar. Non-notable. Supposed bar of the year, but couldn't survive. References are ultra local trade news, PR sites and professional review sites like Conde Nast. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 19:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"First look: Bit House Saloon...", The Oregonian Yes Yes Yes qualifies as single local or niche ✔ Yes
"Portland's 2015 Bar of the Year: Bit House Saloon", The Oregonian Yes Yes No would qualify as single local or niche, but we already have one (and that one is the same as this, we tend to treat multiple instances of coverage by a single source as a single support for GNG). ✘ No
"Bit House Saloon", Willamette Week Yes Yes No one para, plus we already have a local source ✘ No
"Bit House Saloon, Reviewed", Willamette Week Yes Yes No one para, longish, but we already have a local source ✘ No
"Tour The Decor of Ambitious, Historic Bit House Saloon", Eater Portland Yes Yes No would qualify as the single local or niche source, but we already have one ✘ No
"Jesse Card OUT at Bit House Saloon", Eater Portland Yes Yes No would qualifiy as the single local or niche source, but we already have one ✘ No
Playboy Yes Yes ~ two para in a list of fifty. Certainly helps, but possibly not enough? ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Comment on source assessment. Multiple of these would qualify as the one local or industry-niche coverage among three sources, but we need two that are outside the local area/outside industry-niche publications. Valereee (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). Welp, saw this coming. Seems a couple editors don't like that there are so many articles about restaurants in Portland, which is fine but doesn't mean this restaurant is non-notable. Entry has multiple independent reliable sources specifically focused on the topic. Nominator fails to flag which sources are "PR sites" or explain why "professional review sites" are problematic. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline. I raised, with the AfD nominator, the issue of the number of Wikipedia articles on restaurants listed in Portland. (There are more listed for this city than for New York and London). But, I didn't refer to this article specifically.
As there's no separate guideline for restaurants/other eateries/bars I guess they're included under commercial organisations, so WP:ORG and WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS apply. What concerns me here, and in similar articles, is the reliability and independence of the references used. Half the sources here are written by the same author, Alex Frane. These all look promotional and unreliable. Take source 10, the list of "16 essential bars". How many bars did the writer consider 20, 25, 50, 100? Not revealed. What selection criteria was chosen for the lists i.e. what does "best" or "essential" actually mean. Not stated. I put it that the bar's inclusion in lists of this type has little meaning. We simply don't know how the listings were compiled and the factors that led to the business being mentioned or not. I don't see anything by this writer that helps establish notability.
I assume The Oregonian to be a reliable, independent source and make the point that its print coverage is wider than Portland itself.
I have reservations about the other sources and nature of the writing. Eater Portland has many "best of/essential" list type articles. The Eater Portland "Bar of the Year" headline, on the surface, seems to confer notability, but further reading reveals the award was restricted to establishments opened in the past year or so. How many were in the running/seriously considered? Also, I'm not sure how reliable and independent that website is.
One of the Williamette Week references is about a subsequent business. However, the other by Matthew Korfhage, who also writes for USA Today on food related articles, does lend credibility and independence.
So, do 2 credible sourced references amount to widespread coverage and fulfil notability for this as a stand alone article? Borderline. It would help if other reliable published sources were added to the article, preferably from outside of Portland. Rupples (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a defunct organisation with no historical or enclycopeadic value. There is no analysis that provides any deep insights. It is a listicle article similar to what you find in Fodor's or the Michelin guide, except it is defunct organisation. What is the point of it? scope_creepTalk 17:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding sources to an article like this, is similar to trying to pump up a dead whale in the hope that it will float and acts like a whale, even though it is dead. There is no value in the article as a historical or enclyclopeadic entity. Its doesn't have any kind of analysis to prove that it has worth to history. Its a defunct article that fails WP:NCORP, particularly WP:SIRS. Even if was a live organisation, it would still fail WP:SIRS. The fake reviews, that are created by content writers, a strata of internet writers, below technical writers in the scheme of things, that creates these type of shallow "eat here "reviews, to give the place a veneer of respectability and give the idea that it is somehow a good place to eat. If folk don't see the food, they don't go, so its effectively a promotional device to sell the organisation. It is the lowest level of brochure advertising. It is quick and dirty, because within a few weeks a new restaurant will open that will attract folk, so they must put as promo as possible into the venue, so its done as quickly as possible and then with a couple of weeks it is something else. The article on this defunct organisation is a WP:PROMO brochure advertisement that fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 23:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to WP:NOTPROMOTION. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you identify the promotional content here or on the article's talk page, please? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Another Believer. The first example is "a swanky cocktail lounge, a casual tap house, and a happy-hour destination". This example is a quote, but an NPOV encyclopedia article largely consist of subjective quotes from foodie blogs, local travel guides, etc. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're mischaracterizing source quality and you don't like that I've used a direct quote. Got it... ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree not notable and due to WP:NOTPROMOTION. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you identify the promotional content here or on the article's talk page, please? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Another Believer: You don't really need to show an source analysis as its a lot of work. All you need to do, is show WP:THREE secondary references that show the article is notable. Puting a table up, per the doughnut Afd and and then trying to cast doubt on it, is not good way of doing things, particularly since the way done there, exceeedingly poor form. WP:THREE is the standard way of doing it. Three decent refs would close to Afd in a New York minute. But since it a defunct restuarant, there is nothing you grasp. scope_creepTalk 15:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, of course, I'm in the wrong once again. You're welcome to fill in the source assessment table, or not. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is dead company and its non-notable. It has no historical or encyclopedic value. It has nothing of cultural value as something that needs to remembered by humanity. It hasn't advanced humanity by existing. It hasn't got a place in the cultural fabric of the city, as with most restaurants. Once it closes, its completely forgotten, unless somekind of mark has been made that is important, for example Café Guerbois. scope_creepTalk 20:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - While the article was written and notated well, I fail to see how a bar that was only in operation for 5 years and is closed now, would hold enough value to stay published in a global encyclopedia. If it was still open, I would consider its potential to have ongoing value but, since the restaurant was only open for just over 5 years and is closed now, I would probably recommend a delete. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ScienceAdvisor: You're welcome to help determine if the transition from Bit House Saloon to Bit House Collective was a rebrand, or an end and start of completely different companies. I've started a discussion on the article's talk page. Bit House Collective is currently in operation and there are additional sources to add if this entry is to cover Bit House Collective as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I would consider changing my vote to merge but, there is no other page. For the page to be saved, I would consider adding a bit about the Bit House Collective, then redirect the page to a Bit House Collective page where it would hold information about both versions of this venue. From what I saw, I am sure their drag shows are garnering them some media attention that could be used to notate updated information on the new version.ScienceAdvisor (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ScienceAdvisor Seems you are in agreement with User:Grand'mere Eugene at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon#AfD about including details for both Bit House Saloon and Bit House Collective. Bit House Collective seems to have been replaced by Swan Dive, but there's more sources to add about both Bit House Saloon and now especially Bit House Collective (which is only mentioned in passing at this time). More sources have been shared on the article's talk page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the bar has changed hands a 3rd time and was rebranded again, the article should be deleted. There is nothing I see to establish exceptional notability to have a wikipedia page after 2 rebrands and changes in ownership. If anything, the building might be notable enough and, information about each establishment could be listed under a page for a page created for a page created for the building that houses these establishments. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I understand what you're saying, you've assessed available coverage of Bit House Collective, too? I think there's quite a bit more content to add about the Collective. I'll continue trying to expand the entry but in the meantime I've noted the rebrand in the introduction and created a subsection (with an 'expansion needed' tag) to give space to Bit House Collective. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: Can editors please help determine if the 2021 rebrand means the business continued to operate by a different name, or if Bit House Saloon closed and should be considered defunct and totally separate from Bit House Collective? I'll try to revisit recent sources as time allows but I'm kind of drowning in article rescues at the moment, not to mention the other things I have to do "in real life". Please see ongoing Talk page discussion. If this article should cover Bit House Collective as well, then there are even more sources to add and "defunct" category should be removed. Shame this needs to be rushed because of AfD. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep If only because the nominator is clearly targeting AB's work and therefore engaged in WP:WIKIHOUNDING. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 18:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any content related arguments or only nominator related remarks. The Banner talk 19:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The content-related stuff is a moot point given that this AfD was evidently made in bad faith, i.e. to specifically target the work of one editor. Just like how a sockpuppet's nomination would be instantly thrown out, even if legitimate points were raised. It's just common sense: let's stop the wikihounding first, then come back to business (but perhaps after a few weeks at least, for all the dust to settle). KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 19:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you have nothing to say about the content, you just go after the nominator. The Banner talk 20:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you understand what "moot point" means? Begone with all this tedious posturing... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 00:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, as in the way you use it here it means that you do not have any content related arguments but prefer to attack the nominator based on an incorrect idea. The Banner talk 08:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I believe you need to prove bad faith and should not state it lightly, as accusations are damaging, and a confrontation or inhibition of an editor's work. From the policy, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." It appears you are stating @The Banner is targeting a user, but they also can look at an editor's history to correct related problems such as notability over multiple pages (as per the policy). I have not looked into the users in question history, but your basis for the keep has not provided any evidence of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        You misunderstand. Banner is cool, even though he defends the not so cool guy a bit too zealously, when more troubling edit patterns are coming to the light. There's the evidence for you! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 00:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        What I stated was that KingofLettuce was unfairly targetting Scope_Creep for sticking to the notability rules. The Banner talk 08:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        The Banner, What are the notability rules? I'm aware of the notability guidelines (WP:N), including WP:NPOSSIBLE, which states that "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." Is that one of the rules to which you refer? — Jacona (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily meet GNG, even before using many recently found sources in the article. Sources exist demonstrating the notability of the subject, per WP:CONTN. It has three sources already, with plenty more listed on the article's talk page to improve the article. The "subject is defunct" argument puzzles me, since WP keeps articles on defunct restaurants-- we even have Category:Defunct restaurants in the United States populated by sub categories of defunct restaurants by region. But then I mostly edit school articles and biographies. Since we don't delete articles about defunct schools or dead people, I'm not understanding that argument, easily defeated by Reductio ad absurdum. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator seriously believes that "99.999999% of restuarants and bars etc are non-notable and when they close, folk forget about them. They are transitory." [10] KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 00:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. Silly me, I was expecting a reasoned argument... — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grand'mere Eugene, which three sources do you believe rise to the level of supporting a claim of notability? That is, significant coverage in an independent reliable source, two of which are not local or industry niche publications? Valereee (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NCORP, WP:AUD says, at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. I disagree with your advocacy of two, which seems to me an arbitrary inflation over the AUD guideline.
    As I wrote here on 2:14 pm, 19 December 2022, I consider The Oregonian to be a regional source, and we have two sources there, but I also I find the Playboy piece has enough text to meet the guideline for significant coverage. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ɱ (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets examine the references, since this defunct restaurant article has been updated since the Afd was posted. Looking at the first block to see if there is anything that prove that it has lasting cultural appeal
  • Ref 1 [11] Non-significant profile review. Fails WP:SIRS. Reviewed in 2015.
  • Ref 2 Dead link
  • Ref 3 Predatory publisher.
  • Ref 4 [12] Would have failed WP:ORGIND at the time. Reviewed in 2017.
  • Ref 5 [13] Passing mention. Article from August 2016.
  • Ref 6 [14] Passing mention. Chef worked there. Article from Nov 2022
  • Ref 7 [15] Profile review. Would have failed WP:SIRS. Article from 2017.
  • Ref 8 [16] Head-chef at bit house. From March 2021
  • Ref 9 [17] Full review from 2015
  • Ref 10 [18] New businesses in portland. Profiles would have failed WP:SIRS at the time. Article from October 2015

None of these refs prove the business is currently notable. A WP:BEFORE, Gbook search, Google CSE and archive search doesn't find a single reference that proves the restuarant has a lasting cultural impact. It was a local restaurant that existed for six years and has been completely forgotten. It dead defunct business and there is nothing published that can prove it is currently notable. scope_creepTalk 14:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Currently notable" is not a thing. Notability either exists, or it doesn't. ɱ (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, I am sincerely interested in your stance that the article fails notability guidelines because it lacks "reference that proves the restaurant has a lasting cultural impact"'. I respect your expertise, and I need to know what part of GNG or NCORP explains that criterion. In the meantime, following WP:THREE, here is my offering of sources that establish notability, in a more conventional sense as I understand notability guidelines:
— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine you're not familiar with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily Dozen Doughnut Company (2nd nomination) fiasco? Scope creep would spit on the sources you've offered KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeegads, I think I need a drink— or maybe a donut. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've also asked Scope creep to respond on the article's talk page re: ownership. Thank you, Grand'mere Eugene, for taking time to find helpful sources and improve the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the Bit House Collective section further. We're up to 40 sources now, and I've identified another dozen or so to potentially add. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passed WP:GNG and WP:42, and at this point this is a behavior discussion and not an editorial discussion. At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon#AfD_/_PROD article creator AB makes a case which I interpret to be a misconduct compliant. Anyone can AfD this again later, but for now, default to keep for misconduct concerns. There is no reason to nominate this many articles, all from the same person, when discussion is already well-attended and fruitful, during an English Wikipedia holiday season, when the article creator has been posting "please leave me alone" to multiple deletion nominations. There are enough sources here to presume editorial integrity; if there is a problem then raise it again at a reasonable pace after a reasonable amount of time. The AfD process should not be available for use by a nominator who fails to address another editor's request to be left alone. I am not accusing the AfD nominator here; misconduct can be an error and not intentional. I am just saying cool it, slow down, and regroup with some moderator guidance. The conduct problem is a barrier to legitimate discussion here. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • AB, I feel like you think more sources = proves it's notable. That is not the case. You've got 50+ sources here, and no indication of which are
  1. sigcov
  2. independent RS
  3. not local

I do not know why you think it's worth it to just keep adding source after source after source after source after source that doesn't provide those three. I want to help you, and you are literally making it impossible for me to do so because now I have to go through FIFTY SOURCES to see if any of them support notability.

Please just tell me: which three of these sources best represents sigcov in independent RS that aren't local/industry niche? Which three? Valereee (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point to the policy that specifies about locality and industry, please. ɱ (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't actually need stated policy. We just need consensus. And what we've generally seen for businesses is that we need to see coverage outside of their local area and outside of niche publications. That's what demonstrates notability. Valereee (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! A wordy excuse. Please point to policies and guidelines in your deletion discussions, especially when countering votes. I don't accept your logic about this for a second. ɱ (talk) 04:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Le Batard[edit]

David Le Batard (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 originally created in 2009 and deleted in July 2022 as a WP:G11 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=David+Le+Batard). The article was recreated with essentially the same content in December 2022 by a user who is apparently a sock of a banned user. I personally would not delete this as G11 since the original 2009 article was created by a long-standing editor and does not appear to be meant to be an advertisement, though I can also understand why others would think that way. I do agree the subject's notability is questionable. My main concern now is that the commit history is lost so contributions over the years are not recorded. If this article should stay we should restore the edit history from 2009-2022. Taking this to AfD for a decision. -SpuriousQ (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks like sufficient coverage in Florida newspapers. Jahaza (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep, though I would like to see at least one instance of non-local coverage. BD2412 T 15:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep RS is RS whether local national or international. The person appears to be notable. Bruxton (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as article is well sourced. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, excellent references and restore the edit history from 2009-2022Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to merge, so default to keep. Different quality arguments for merging, some good and some not so good, but I find Rupples' last paragraph to be the most persuasive. Desire to merge can be done via editorial processes over coming months if no development of the article occurs. Daniel (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Elbląg[edit]

Flag of Elbląg (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)

Been tagged for a few weeks without improvement. There's a single in-depth source currently (#2 at the time of nomination), but searches did not turn up any other in-depth coverage. Could be redirected to the city, but that was contested. Onel5969 TT me 13:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This is flag of city, which means that it's not gonna have huge internet presence, as people usually don't write news articles about flags. It doesn't mean its not notable. Flags usually don't have huge coverage online, and when they do, its mostly in vexicollogy related blogs, which aren't good source to begin with. This is the case with most city flags, as you will notice, when you look around, most flag articles on Wikipedia don't have much online coverage and are usually stubs. But they are recognizable symbols, and are given they onw articles here. And this particular flag is well established historical symbol, used since 14th century. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge summary to Elbląg. As written, WP:GNG is not met. This can be covered in a section in the city about its symbols, but for stand-alone article we need more an official document and an article on a local portal. Coverage in other sources doesn't appear to meet WP:SIGCOV. This is not a hoax, but it's not notable, either. PS. Another place information can be preserved might be Wikimedia Commons, in the description of an image. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Elbląg. As Piotrus said, this currently does not meet GNG. If sources can be found proving notability, I would be happy to change to keep. echidnaLives - talk - edits 05:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. The article is too long to add to the article about the city. There is already a standard for writing separate articles about city flags. The half-smaller town of Pocatello has a separate article about the flag and yet it is a new project, while Elblag has traditions dating back to the Middle Ages. Similarly, the 100-year-old (old for the United States) Flag of Santa Barbara, California. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swiãtopôłk Your argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Suprised we don't have WP:ITSTOOLONGTOMERGE, that's a nice fallacy to add there too. Merging non-encyclopedic information should not be done, neither keeping it is good. Deletion is a solution, although WP:ATD tells us redirecting with a merge of "some" essential content will likely be the best outcome. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep or merge. This doesn't look that bad, sources say it's mention in an encyclopedia of flags? Second option (I think 🤔) would be to merge (per Piotrus) -
GizzyCatBella🍁 04:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I have seen articles that have been tagged for years for improvement that have not been brought up to AFD. It looks like this article is at stub level and there are already some references. With support from Polish editors, there is a possibility that more expansion can be achieved. However, I think if expansion proves to be not feasible, an eventual merge may be the best route. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - leaning towards merge into Elbląg, but where to exactly? Perhaps a new section called "flag and coat of arms"? Detailed facts about the flag's design/aspect ratio could be placed in the description of the graphic in Wiki Commons (there is currently only a most basic description). I see potential for further development of the article/section so long as reliable sources can be found, such as a timeline of historical Elbląg flags, description of how widely used the flag is e.g. what buildings is it flown from, inclusion of a photograph. Rupples (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to determine whether to Keep or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Elbląg. There's not so much material that the city article cannot absorb it, and I see no claim for independent notability. Mangoe (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've been mulling over whether a merge or keep is best and it's a close call. A potted history of the flag is here [19] and although it could be deemed a blog, contributors have put forward sources for the material added, one of which is this: [20], a work on flags published in 1848. Inclusion in this work suggests some historical significance attaches to the flag. OK, a picture doesn't amount to in-depth analysis, but to me this, together with the existing sources is sufficient to push the article over the line regarding WP:GNG. The city was formerly in Prussia and so searches need to include its former German name of Elbing.
I think the article could be developed along the lines suggested in my previous comment but that is less likely to happen if merged into Elbląg. The flag's dimensional detail doesn't sit well in the Elbląg article (too detailed) but is fine in a separate page for the flag. Rupples (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Constitution of Kosovo until/unless the section on this topic is developed to a point where a WP:SPLIT from the main article seems appropriate. RL0919 (talk) 08:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of Kosovo (1974)[edit]

Constitution of Kosovo (1974) (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)

Very short WP:REDUNDANTFORK with identical content as Constitution of Kosovo#First constitution, 1974. None other federal units of the former SFR Yugoslavia have separate articles for their 1974 constitutions, and so shouldn't Kosovo, because all of them are coverable within 1974 Yugoslav Constitution and History sections on their individual successor country articles. Vipz (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • :Hello. As the creator of the article, if it is necessary, I appreciate renaming the article more than deleting it. All the arguments I have attached to the article as references, I think it would be good to add one or two sources in the Serbo-Croatian language. All the best. Drenisa (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to mention that in other wikis we have Ustav NR Hrvatske from 1947] & Ustav NR Srbije from 1947, etc ... In the future, someone can create other articles about the constitutions of the Yugoslav republics and provinces and translate them into English. Than You.:Drenisa (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drenisa I hoped somebody else would reply to you instead of me, so you don't accuse me again of having something personal against you. That said, I've not disputed verifiability nor sourcing for the content, all that is great. It is a question of necessity for having short copies of something that can and already is fully covered in a section of another article. Therefore, no content is being deleted. Other Wikipedia editions operate separately from English Wikipedia and have their own policies. Furthermore, the former link you've provided is a link to (Croatian) Wikisource, and I'm pretty sure you could create articles about individual republic and province constitutions on English Wikisource if you so wish, then link it on Constitution of Kosovo#First constitution, 1974 using {{Wikisource}}. -Vipz (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (or perhaps, Speedy Keep) - It seems clear that some editing result should occur here, but as per Joy [shallot] I can't see why deletion would be an appropriate outcome. The nomination reason given was WP:REDUNDANTFORK, but the appropriate remedy here is to WP:MERGE or to open a request for comment. Suriname0 (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. BusterD (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Secundino, Arizona[edit]

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

Another case where the topos and aerials tell the story, as I get nothing from searching except that "Secundino" is a common first name. The topos, however, show first a "Secundino Well" as a physical feature, and this eventually morphs into a group of water tanks that are eventually reduced to one, with a set of corrals and a barn-ish building next to it. The topos do not keep up with this entirely, but once the tanks appear on the maps the "Well" is dropped and it becomes a Place. The facility has clearly been abandoned a long time but still shows up in GMaps. It's plainly not a settlement and never was, and lacking any other documentation beyond what I've recounted above I can't see how it is notable. Mangoe (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Satellite view shows a corral and topos show a Secindino Well. Unclear how this morphed into a "populated place". –dlthewave ☎ 13:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete getting lots of first names only, also. Elinruby (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't find anything helpful in a google search nor a newspapers.com search. Jacona (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glashan Public School[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NSCHOOL. The only thing I could find was the school raising money for a new yard and them getting 2nd place in a commpetition.this fails WP:ALL SCHOOLS ARE NOTABLE. Its a regular middle school with nothing that makes it out of the ordinary. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 04:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bordeaux (1938 FIFA World Cup)[edit]

Battle of Bordeaux (1938 FIFA World Cup) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a particularly remarkable game. Despite the nickname, which the article describes as an "informal" one anyway. It had some fouls. A couple of Brazilians were sent off. One of four quarter-finals. It made one record (which could be covered in FIFA World Cup records and statistics). That record lasted until... the World Cup after the next one (1950 was the only World Cup between 1938 and 1954). A player "suffered a broken right arm and right leg respectively in the mayhem" ... ? This happens all the time in sport. Players leaving the field with injuries? What is notable about this? The game had only two goals. Neither of them were important or involved any records. And "a 30-minute extra time had to be played"? Again, routine. This happens all the time in football. What is the point of it existing separately from 1938 FIFA World Cup final tournament#Brazil vs Czechoslovakia? Neither team won the World Cup. Neither team even made the final. The Middle E 🐫 (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the sources present in the article establish notability to pass WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 02:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 00:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Brennan[edit]

Amanda Brennan (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)

Doesn't meet notability. If she does, this article needs expanding. Nswix (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She's covered by feature stories in the Toronto Star, Washington Post and the Independent. That's enough for GNG.Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to significant coverage in reliable sources. pburka (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep existing article is fine as-is for proving notability but there does seem to be more to include. Like the BOOKEND: I Can Has Meme Job?, a feature piece on her. And New Perspectives in Critical Data Studies seems to have non-trivial sourcing about her. Skynxnex (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Internet. Skynxnex (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article's subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC with just the sources already present in the article at the time of nomination to AfD, I'm really not sure how the article's subject "doesn't meet notability", because there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject (i.e., WP:GNG). This article needs expanding is not something that is solved by deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'll dissent. The coverage is mostly about her job, not herself, and what's about herself is based on WP:INTERVIEWs. I don't think WP:NBIO is met. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it's a job she invented. If we were to write an article about the position of meme librarian it would be about Amanda Brennan. pburka (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - secondary coverage of her career supports her notability as it would for any subject of a BLP, per WP:BASIC. In the article, the Toronto Star and Independent sources are reprints of the Washington Post source, although it includes secondary content about her education and career development. She is also quoted for her expertise by Nieman Lab (2017), The New York Times (2017), NPR (2020), Vox (2021), and NBC (2022, "Tumblr’s former meme librarian, who now tracks internet macrotrends as a trend expert for XX Artists, a talent agency with clients like Google and YouTube"), and described as "meme librarian and internet culture expert" by WBUR (2021). I plan to search the WP Library and look more closely at GBooks results before !voting. Beccaynr (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC - there is also coverage in Life on the Meme Council: Meet the Internet’s Gatekeepers (NYT, 2017), some coverage of her education and career background in Bookend: I Can Has Meme Job? (American Libraries, 2016), coverage of her work at Tumblr in addition to an interview based on her expertise in Tumblr's 'Meme Librarian' Predicts What We'll Love in 2018 (Inverse 2017), and more sources quoting her for her expertise, e.g. NYT, 2021, "said Amanda Brennan, senior director of trends and the meme librarian at XX Artists, a social media agency"), NYT, 2021, Business Insider, 2022, "according to Amanda Brennan, a meme librarian and senior director of trends at XX Artists."), and Insider, 2020. She has secondary evaluation/commentary from sources over time when they describe her as an expert and seek her expertise, and it appears that this article can be further developed based on available sources that include biographical and career coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not all of the sources here establish her notability, but her notability as meme librarian is well supported by the scope and breadth of the in-depth sources that are unequivocally about her and her role. Alansohn (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_December_18&oldid=1129633474"