Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 05 December 07 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whitetail, Arizona[edit]

Whitetail, 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)

"Original Citation: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service" is inevitably a bad sign in a GNIS entry, and this is no exception. There is a spattering of springs and other features, including a ranger station to the east (with a different name), but no Whitetail on the topos. No sign it was ever anything but a campground. Mangoe (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Skynxnex (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Can't seem to find that it is anything other than a campground. TartarTorte 14:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if RS can be found regarding the former campground, an article can be started. For now this was not a populated place and does not meet our guidelines for Geoland. Lightburst (talk) 16:56, 13 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 is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 21:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Minervini[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Craig Minervini (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 sportscaster. Article tagged for notability since 2017 and reads like a resume while fueled by primary sources that are either generic announcements or local/niche coverage. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 22:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Along with these promising sources in the article [1] [2], I also found two books with sections about him [3], [4]. These are not 'Three Blind Mice' passing mentions. In my opinion that’s enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Sure, the article could use a bit of improvement, but it’s not unsalvageable. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 02:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Links are either primary sources by the WWE, his former place of employment, or generic local announcements. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 07:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 29 November 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! 22:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Out of the 11 sources cited, only 3, 4, 5 and 6 constituted significant coverage. Source 2 and 11 had nothing about the subject. Rest of the cited sources only mentioned the subject in passing. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primeshow Entertainment[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Primeshow Entertainment (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. References are trivial mentions that fail WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:BEFORE only found routine announcements and trivial mentions. VickKiang (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the G4 request, the previous version was completely unsourced and this one has a load of references. No opinion on whether the subject is notable. Hut 8.5 17:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that G4 doesn't apply. Previous version was deleted in February 2022, whereas this has lots of newer refs from October/November 2022. VickKiang (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion, so relisting for more input to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: My similar opinion in the first AfD said: While the company does get some incidental mentions in articles about particular films and features on Niranjan Reddy, WP:NCORP requires that notability is demonstrable through coverage about the company. That remains the case: to the extent that the "teaser" coverage for HanuMan mentions this firm at all, it is as a postfix: "produced by Niranjan Reddy under PrimeShow Entertainment banner", etc. Passing mentions are insufficient for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO - my search for sources also finds brief mentions and announcements, mostly in low-quality sources, and no significant coverage about the company in independent and reliable sources. Per WP:CORPDEPTH, it does not appear possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 21:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Bhende[edit]

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

I could find no significant sourcing online for this actor/director. Apparently he was in a few notable films, but only had a prominent role in one and there is no sourcing aside from IMDB and other databases. Fails WP:GNG. ‡ The Night Watch ω (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Morekar, I'm glad you found some sourcing, but can you tell me what makes "Maharashtra Nayak" and "Marathi Movie World" reliable sources? The about pages for both do not inspire much confidence for their professionalism.
‡ The Night Watch ω (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be an established all-rounder. WP:NEXIST is the established consensus. If sources are available anywhere and I'm sure they are, then he's notable. Passes WP:SIGCOV. 14:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes. SIGCOV is indeed met. But NEXIST says that there must be reliable sources, and I am questioning the validity of those included sources. Also, I'm a bit concerned that you're asserting WP:TMBS. I could find no reliable sources via WP:ASEARCH. Can you tell me why these included sources prove that there will be RSes out there that prove notability? ‡ The Night Watch ω (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete None of the sources provided ever proved the significance of the subject. Many of the sources cited and external articles that I found (like this one) only ever mentioned him as the husband of Uma Bhende, with no indication of the significance of his work. His movies that are listed in rotten tomatoes, cinestaan and IMDB have no reviews nor ratings. There is nothing to prove that the subject is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article as far as I can tell. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Phil Moy[edit]

The result was Delete. I have no idea what I was thinking when I made this article in 2006. Getting rid of his twin brother's article next, for the same reasons. Their presence on Wikidata is supportable, but not on Wikipedia.DS (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

Does not meet notability requirements. The one source in the article is not independent from the person. And the other one looks self published. Nweil (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could have sworn that there was a criterion for notability that was "did more a certain amount of work, either writing or drawing, for one of the Big Two comics companies". If that's the case, I can most likely support that for Moy. DS (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NCOMIC is an essay and not official policy, but it doesn't cover living persons anyway. For that we look to WP:BLP, which this person fails. I can't find any significant sources about them. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 21:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

StockGro[edit]

StockGro (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 two-year-old company fails GNG and NCORP. I am unable to locate any significant, independent media coverage besides routine fundraising reports and "How X did Y" themed PR stories. Maduant (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano Montealegre Fernández[edit]

Mariano Montealegre Fernández (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)

He was the son of an important political figure in Costa Rica but I can't find anything to suggest he was notable. I have found his name listed in several books but each time it is just in lists of ancestors. There are several other people with similar names, if others go looking for sources JMWt (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete: Searched but also found no sources to indicate notability. Olivierjohnston (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC) -- sock strike (MurrayGreshler (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]

  • Strong Delete Unsourced BLP. No effective references. scope_creepTalk 08:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this because a) the individual died in 1900 and so this is not a BLP and b) the article creator was never informed about this AFD which I think is an oversight on the part of the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The father article, Mariano Montealegre Bustamante is also unsourced. So there is no source for businessman or his mum and dad. No effective sources. The Spanish WP article on Mariano Montealegre Bustamante is also unsourced. scope_creepTalk 11:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article was written in an era where anyone could start an article with no sourcing and it was ok because this is just a joke website. I don't speak Spanish and I can't tell from what I'm getting in searches if sufficient sources exist. That said, Wikipedia doesn't need to have an article on this person and if we did, a more competent editor could perform the research and write a keep-able article. No content at all is better than poor content. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Gauntlet track. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide examples of gauntlet tracks[edit]

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

This article is the very antithesis of WP:NOTDIRECTORY - it attempts to list out every instance of gauntlet tracks in the world. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. This is fundamentally unencyclopedic. I removed all of this content from the gauntlet track article for these reasons, but it was forked over to this new title. This should be deleted as non-encyclopedic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to gauntlet track. Trainsandotherthings has previously used WP:NOTDIRECTORY to argue against the inclusion of lists of locomotives and most editors disagreed with their broad interpretation of this policy. There is enough context here and so it would appear to be permissable by the first bullet of NOTDIRECTORY. Garuda3 (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a list of locomotives, it's a non-encyclopedic listing of instances of gauntlet track globally. What's next, Worldwide examples of manhole covers? This content is not appropriate for Wikipedia, and should not be allowed to ruin the gauntlet track article by filling it with cruft. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a pointless comparison as it would appear there are significantly fewer instances of gauntlet track compared to manhole covers. Also, nobody has bothered to write an article on manhole covers have they? WP:OTHERSTUFF. This page also shows off some of the more interesting images on Wikimedia Commons that would likely never be seen if the content wasn't included in Wikipedia. Garuda3 (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Gee I sure can't wait to read the policy page about how "This page also shows off some of the more interesting images on Wikimedia Commons that would likely never be seen if the content wasn't included in Wikipedia" is a valid reason to keep an article. You wouldn't make up policy, would you?
    I'm not sure if you know this, but on an article, you can see on the left side of the screen "in other projects" and there's a link to the Wikimedia Commons category with all the gauntlet track images your heart desires. Hope this helps. And that you remember which project we're on. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There IS an article on manhole covers. Somebody has bothered to start it. Peter Horn User talk 19:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is there is no list of manhole covers, because that would be an impossible and pointless list, much like this list of gauntlet tracks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There can be tens of manhole covers on a single medium-sized street, most entire countries have fewer than ten examples of gauntlet track. The two are not at all comparable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is a correct application of NOTDIRECTORY. Gauntlet tracks are a commonplace engineering solution, not even remotely notable like locomotives. Maintaining a list of every example would require a massive amount of work, and there almost certainly would not be sufficient reliable sources to have any semblance of verifiability. Wikipedia is not the place for railfan cruft, and showing off images from Wikimedia Commons is not a reason to have an article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most, if not all, images are self referencing and clearly show what they shuw. Peter Horn User talk 20:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 20:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User-generated images on Wikipedia and Commons are explicitly not reliable sources per WP:USERGENERATED. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and perhaps rename as Worldwide list of Gauntlet tracks The texts and images are worth it Peter Horn User talk 20:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We could provide a few examples in the Gauntlet track article, but gauntlet tracks are very, very common, as Pi mentions. We definitely shouldn't be making lists of gauntlet tracks worldwide. This article seems to directly contravene WP:NOTDIRECTORY, since it is a literal directory of gauntlet track locations. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested above, it's a fairly standard railroad engineering item; we can list a few of them in the main article, but we don't need examples from every place on earth that has them. Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Gauntlet track already has excessive images (courtesy of Peter Horn); we really do not need more of them there. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Trains... you might go through Wiki and reduce the number of images in all articles that in your opinion have too many. Youll be busy for quite a long time.
    Peter Horn User talk 04:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As others have suggested, some examples could be included in the main article. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep and move per Necrothesp below. Although I still agree with WP:NOTDIRECTORY, NOTDIRECTORY writes that Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones. (emphasis mine) I wouldn't be surprised if there are any notable gauntlet tracks. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a gallery at least the images that can be identified bt their captions. See sample the follows. Peter Horn User talk 02:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck your duplicate vote. You may only vote once, Peter Horn. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the two images and captions in question are already present in Gauntlet track. Why do we need the 50 other examples as well? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the sole reason for keeping the article is to retain the image gallery, then the gallery would be more appropriately hosted on Wikimedia Commons, not on Wikipedia. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete material which is served perfectly well by "Commons has additional media on gantlet track". This is a common feature which we do not need an exhaustive list of, nor a "Lichtenstein has gantlet traces too" bit of filler. Mangoe (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Gauntlet tracks.
  • Peter Horn User talk 04:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to List of gauntlet tracks, which would be standard wording on Wikipedia. Perfectly valid list of examples, details and images. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: per Necrothesp. List is valid, contents are excessive. Ensure the various bluelink tracks are sourced, merge the ancillary material to the main article, and cut this down to an unexpanded list. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The "ancillary material" is non-encyclopedic and should be deleted (as should everything in this article). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You have made your opinion very clear already, there is no need to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I comment when I see mis-application of policy. But it seems another RfC is in order if people interpret NOTDIRECTORY in this manner. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because your interpretation of a policy differs from how most other people interpret that policy doesn't mean an RFC is required, it just means that your views are not in accordance with consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's funny, Thryduulf - that's pretty similar to what several people told me about train stations. Then a community-wide RfC was held and it turned out my view was very much in line with global consensus. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Except the conclusion of that RFC, and the outcome of most AfDs since, was a lot closer to the position held by the majority of trains editors (broadly: "if a thorough search fails to demonstrate individual notability then merge and redirect rather than delete, unless it's unverifiable") than the "delete everything that doesn't have detailed sources in the article" you mostly seem to advocate. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    More misrepresentation. Typical. Please let me know what policy says removing unsourced information is wrong. I'll wait. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a big difference between removing information that can't be sourced after attempts to verify it have failed and deleting an entire article because, despite being entirely verifiable and despite it being a facet of an unquestionably notable topic about which we have an article, a cursory google search doesn't find any sources you regard as in-depth that happen to be in English. I would say that I'm happy to wait for you to learn the difference between notability and verifiability, the difference between merging and deleting, and the difference between an in-depth search for sources in the place, format and language they are most likely to exist and a one minute google search in English, however I'm not happy as you've been here long enough that you should have learned such basics long before now. I am happy to wait however for retraction of the false accusations of misrepresentation. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Right after you retract your claims that I don't know "the difference between notability and verifiability" or "the difference between merging and deleting". I don't take kindly to liars. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see evidence on this page (and elsewhere) that you either do not know the difference between notability and verifiability or you do know the difference and choose to ignore it. I was assuming the good faith option when I presumed you did not know the difference, as you have described that assumption as lying then I can only conclude that your actions are not in good faith. I will leave the closing administrator to judge what weight to accord your arguments in the light of that. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, you want to talk about bad faith? All you ever do is assume bad faith on my part. You assume I am motivated by a desire to delete articles, rather than to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I am very well aware of the difference between verifiability and notability, or do you think the administrators who granted me AfC and NPP perms were making errors? Your attacks never end, do they? You'd much rather insult other editors than try to actually demonstrate any sourcing exists for anything. When I think an article should be kept, I prove it. You just bloviate about how it's a terrible crime to consider the notability of a train station on an individual basis, or to cite Wikipedia policy. If you think I'm acting in bad faith, either take it to ANI or kindly shut the fuck up, okay? Thank you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When inviting someone to reevaluate your faith then a paragraph of ad hominems is not the method I would recommend choosing. I will not be drawn into further comment here. Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Necrothesp. This is a perfectly valid spinout list that gives additional detail that would be excessive in the main article but are still nevertheless encyclopaedic. Some of the entries could be perhaps be trimmed, but that's not a reason to delete and AfD is not cleanup. Thryduulf (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge' the Original Posters reasoning is valid. This should be part of the Gauntlet Track article Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Gauntlet tracks, there is no length issue that presents this from being presented as examples within the same article describing the phenomenon. BD2412 T 02:09, 14 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 undeletion of these articles.

Just as an aside, it looks like these were the original lists of municipalities and List of municipalities in the Province of Pomerania was created from these smaller lists. This is a Soft Delete so if it seems in the future that shorter lists are easier for readers to review, these can be restored. Liz Read! Talk! 19:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of municipalities in the Province of Pomerania, A–H[edit]

List of municipalities in the Province of Pomerania, A–H (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 of municipalities in the Province of Pomerania, I–P (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of municipalities in the Province of Pomerania, Q–Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles appear to be redundant to List of municipalities in the Province of Pomerania, A–Z. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep. Closing own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep, when all other viewpoints were for keep as well, per WP:NACD. (non-admin closure) - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 18:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Voskamp[edit]

Ann Voskamp (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 see a lot of non-independent sources such as interviews and some passing mentions in "best of" lists, but absolutely nothing that meets the WP:GNG as both significant and independent. Tagged for WP:V issues since Feb 2020. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 17:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valerio Frasca[edit]

Valerio Frasca (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 semi-pro footballer who previously played some matches in Italy's third and fourth levels (Soccerway reports 1 match in Serie C1 and 15 matches in Serie C2). I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources; instead there are club press releases about signings and an a regional newspaper's interview with the subject. Article fails WP:GNG. PROD was removed without any indication that the article meets WP:SPORTBASIC. Jogurney (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Nabhan[edit]

Lara Nabhan (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 seems notable journalist. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there is tabloid coverage about her appearance, she was also the subject of news when she was the victim of an assault:
https://palsawa.com/post/157874/%D9%86%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D8%AD%D9%81%D9%8A%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%AA%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AA%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D8%AD%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A7-%D9%83%D9%86%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%86
Her health was the subject of news when she caught COVID https://yasour.org/2018/en/news/details/news-53407
Her tweets made CNN Arabic news https://arabic.cnn.com/middle-east/article/2019/07/31/lebanon-mashrou-leila-concert-cancelled (not significant coverage)
I cannot comment on the strength of the sources of the first two, but I've seen enough to think she is notbale. CT55555(talk) 02:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But Palsawa.com and Yasour.org are not a reliable source. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 10:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Palsawa.com is the url. The Sawa News Agency is the source of the first one.
Likewise Yasour.org is a url, we're talking about Ya Tire Social Cultural Media Group, which was founded in 2005
I've searched WP:RSPSS and, unsurprisingly, it is silent on both. There is no consensus that they are either reliable or unreliable. I find that to the be norm for Arabic language news sources. It doesn't mean they are depreciated or bad, it's just normal for Wikipedia editors to assess English language and European language sources. So we need to make a judgement. As I said I cannot be certain of the strength of them. It seems obvious that they are weaker than The New York Times, but the google translate of the text seemed credible. If the content was controversial, I'd not use it for verifiability, but for the task of assessing of someone is notable, I consider them useful. CT55555(talk) 17:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notable program is mentioned which she presents. --2003:E0:F70F:B700:F8FD:5C18:53CD:652F (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no obligation to be affiliated with a notable program, only for the subject themselves to be notable. This is not a valid justification to delete. CT55555(talk) 00:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Charles Farrer[edit]

Paul Charles Farrer (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)

Game show contestant who does not appear to pass even a bare minimum of WP:GNG, article appears to be a WP:COATRACK violation as well. Jayron32 16:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jayron!
I am the creator of this article. I am new to wikipedia, and so I apologise deeply if I have caused you a lot of hassle.
However, I do not believe that this article should be deleted, it was about much more than his appearance on a game show. Before being edited by someone else, this article also outlined ... The article however did not just focus on that alone, it also mentioned his works for charity, and so I believe it was a well balanced overview of him, even if it is a very short article.
Many thanks! Cat957 (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody decided to delete a part of my comment without warrant. What I was saying was this article outlines [removed], which was publicised. Cat957 (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Appearing on a game show, working for charity and being found to have acted inappropriately in a workplace does not make an otherwise non-notable person notable. The article is poorly sourced as well. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Spain, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I went back in the article's history, and read the longer version. There is no way under the sun that this person is notable, and there is no plausible claim of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had to re-read the stub that was here a few times to confirm why it was indicated that he was on a game show. Otherwise he just appears to be a cleric. I'll review the older versions of the article and see what I can find before !voting. Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no indication and cannot find any indication of notability, and I also think the article has WP:BLP issues, which per WP:DEL-REASON is also a reason to delete --Tristario (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What I think we have here is a good-faith effort to recognize a person who is laudably generous but falls far short of WP:ANYBIO, WP:CLERGY, and WP:SIGCOV criteria.Blue Riband► 18:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any sources that show they would pass any notability standards. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. The editor who created the article did so in violation of a previous block, and the article has no substantial edits by other editors. Mz7 (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Devaksh Rai[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. The draft was rejected but the draft creator chose to move it to mainspace anyway. No major roles in notable productions, no coverage in independent, secondary reliable sources. bonadea contributions talk 16:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agni Dev is very prominent role in Dharm Yoddha Gaurd and this show is Contiloe Entertainment.
https://g.co/kgs/J9UEvq
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12391928/
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/from-a-cashier-to-a-waiter-devaksh-rai-has-done-it-all-before-he-fulfilled-his-dream-of-becoming-an-actor/articleshow/95223453.cms
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/tv/hindi/devaksh-rai-tells-what-hes-learnt-as-an-actor-doing-mythological-shows/videoshow/95977281.cms
https://www.iwmbuzz.com/lifestyle/love-and-relationships/maldives-is-my-dream-date-destination-devaksh-rai/2022/12/05
https://www.tellychakkar.com/tv/interviews/exclusive-stay-stable-any-situation-hold-those-godly-expressions-the-toughest-task
https://www.tellychakkar.com/tv/tv-news/exclusive-i-want-do-roles-are-larger-life-characters-which-represent-shri-ram-shri
https://www.ghatakreporter.com/2022/08/blog-post_612.html Abhinav1976 (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to go over these, IMDB is not a reliable source. The last 6 sources are merely interviews, which as primary sources of the subject's own words, cannot be considered independent, and as such, while possibly useful for filling out the article with some information, don't count towards notability, which requires independent sources. The only source that really seems to be independent and reliable is the Times of India profile that discusses a bit about his biography. One single independent source, which has only about 5 paragraphs of solid text, is not really enough source material to hang an article on. It's a start, but it isn't enough. --Jayron32 18:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abhinav1976, as has repeatedly been pointed out to you, Tellychakkar is an unreliable source, and Times of India is not reliable in biographies. Have you looked at WP:ICTFSOURCES? --bonadea contributions talk 18:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankit_Arora

This article is biography and he use also times of india and tellychakkar, how he have reliable source and notable topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhinav1976 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Deliatyn attack[edit]

2022 Deliatyn attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a minor incident that fails WP:GNG/WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NEVENT. The first use of hypersonic Kh-47M2 Kinzhal is, well, the first use of military equipment - it should be mentioned (and is) in Kinzhal's "Operational history" section, and it can also be mentioned in Deliatyn (and it is). No need for a separate article. Apparently, nobody died, and Ukraine claims the Russian high-tech missile wrecked a... chicken coop. This is not encyclopedic content, it has no enduring coverage or significance. Some content here could be merged (probably to Deliatyn). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is eligible for a speedy deletion as G5, as it was written by a blocked sock (and the master was blocked primarily for writing substandard articles).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't, the relevant clause of G5 is "that have no substantial edits by others." There have been many good-faith edits to the article in the intervening time. Had you tagged this for G5 when the banned user was the only editor, you'd be correct. As it stands, this has had too many hands in it to be eligible for G5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs)
I only see there some wikignoming, no substantial edits. But I do not have a strong opinion on deletion, sock also sometimes write useful articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources in the article seem to indicate the attack itself (rather than just the missle) passes WP:GNG. No prejudice to also mentioning it in other relevant articles per WP:BTW. --Jayron32 16:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete We have a tendency towards blow-by-blow/article-by-article coverage of a conflict, but when it comes down to it all the sources are from a short period, and even at the time it doesn't appear to have had much of an impact. The "we had to call it something" suggests that neither a merge nor a redirect is called for. We didn't need separate articles for the first attacks of the V-1 or V-2, and they were actually consequential. Mangoe (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete already covered in adequate detail on Kh-47M2 Kinzhal. We don't have a page for every first operational use of a weapon. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I struggle to see how the sources provided are anything other than WP:ROUTINE war coverage. Include whatever little bits in the appropriate articles (Deliatyn, the missile article, etc.), and then delete. Curbon7 (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geir Bjørklund[edit]

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

Per WP:NACADEMIC, the article lacks in secondary literature referring to Bjørklund. This was also discussed on Portal Medicine, it seems like that the same SPA user has created this page and translated them via Google translate in different languages to pretend notability. The article is subject to heavy POV, the SPA was now removing lot's of parts. However, without finding secondary literature (CONEM the webpage of Bjørklund himself) and demonstrating the notability, there is no reason to keep the advertising article. Julius Senegal (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Julius Senegal (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently, the article mainly uses secondary references. In fact, 14 of 15 (93%) references are to secondary sources. The present version of the article is also entirely different from Wikipedia articles about Geir Bjørklund in other languages. Ruth Dahle (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ruth Dahle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JBW (talk • contribs) 16:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]
    We need secondary references acc. to WP:MEDRS, not primary sources about "he is member of xy" of the organization itself.
    Notability is still lacking. --Julius Senegal (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Journalism, Medicine, and Norway. Skynxnex (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This article can still need improvement. I am slowly improving the text and references, but I will be happy if others can help. Ruth Dahle (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Geir Bjørklund is a renowned Norwegian researcher. He was among the first in the country who evaluate the risk of occupational disease in dentistry due to mercury and mercury vapor exposure.[1-3] According to Nature, research by Bjørklund and collaborators indicates that long-term, low-dose radiation may cause cardiovascular problems, including high blood pressure.[4]
    I have also researched more about Geir Bjørklund, but I am unsure if these references are allowed. However, how to otherwise document these facts about a media-shy researcher?:
    Geir Bjørklund ranks among the top one percent of the world’s researchers.[5] He ranks No. 2 in mercury in Europe and No. 4 worldwide.[6, 7] In selenium, he ranks No. 4 in Europe and No. 5 worldwide (Expertscape).[8, 9] Expertscape also ranks him among the top published authors worldwide on autism spectrum disorder.[10] His current h-index, as seen on Google Scholar, is 52 and results from 8,642 citations (2022-12-10).[11]
    Considering the growth of citations to the scientific works of Geir Bjørklund, as seen by the graph on GoogleScholar, it is difficult not thinking that a short biography about him may interest at least many of the large number of people who cite him in their theses and scientific articles. Therefore, I conclude that Bjørklund is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. However, other people must decide if this is correct or not. I am not an expert on Wikipedia and its editorial rules; I only express what I think.
    References
    1. Kvikksølv-plomber rammer tannlegen. Østlandets Blad 25.03.1991. [Norwegian newspaper]
    2. Kvikksølv helsefarlig. Adresseavisen 25.03.1991. [Norwegian newspaper]
    3. Myhr KI. Farlig for tannlegene. Dagbladet 03.04.1991. [Norwegian newspaper]
    4. Yan W. In the shadow of nuclear sins. Nature 2019: 568(4 April):22-24. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01034-8
    5. Geir Bjorklund: Stats. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Geir-Bjorklund/stats. Assessed 10 December 2022.
    6. Expertise in Mercury: Europe. https://expertscape.com/ex/mercury/c/eur. Assessed 10 December 2022.
    7. Expertise in Mercury: Worldwide. https://expertscape.com/ex/mercury/p/earth. Assessed 10 December 2022.
    8. Expertise in Selenium: Europe. https://expertscape.com/ex/selenium/c/eur. Assessed 10 December 2022.
    9. Expertise in Selenium: Worldwide. https://expertscape.com/ex/selenium/p/earth. Assessed 10 December 2022.
    10. Expertise in Autism Spectrum Disorder: Geir Bjorklund. https://expertscape.com/au/autism+spectrum+disorder/Bjørklund%2C+Geir. Assessed 10 December 2022.
    11. GoogleScholar: Geir Bjorklund. https://scholar.google.gr/citations?user=7G_z7d4AAAAJ&hl=en. Assessed 10 December 2022. Ruth Dahle (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another relevant paper with reference to Geir Bjørklund is:
    Christensen B. Ambisiøst og uklart om biologisk medisin. Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen 2001; 121:3096. Ruth Dahle (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop spreading obscure links (expertscape) or papers from Bjorklund himself.
    If he is really notable, then normal secondary sources should proove it easily. Also, in English please, as a wannabe famous scientist he shouldn't rely only on Norwegian sources --Julius Senegal (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As seen in my comments above, the data of the scientific publishing of Geir Bjørklund speaks for itself. Since 2013, Bjørklund has published 237 PubMed-indexed scientific papers in English. Everyone who wants can check his ranking also in Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and other relevant databases.
    The Expertscape medical search and ranking solution uses objective algorithms to identify the most knowledgeable and experienced doctors and medical institutions across over 26,000 specific topics, stratified by geography. Expertscape defines an expert as someone who has published peer-reviewed research in the science, therapies, and complications for a specific medical topic. The data is obtained from PubMed at the United States National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health, which comprises more than 34 million citations from biomedical literature. The listing of the rankings of Geir Bjørklund is based on articles published since 2012. Ruth Dahle (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you get it?
    Counting and citing simple data bases is WP:OR and a primary source anyway.
    Where are now the various publications of newspapers mentioning Bjorklund, making him notable? Where are the various books saying "thank you" to Bjorklund, highlighting him as a famous researcher?
    If he was so notable, everyone would know about him, would write about him.
    Stick now to WP:NACADEMIC instead of wasting time here. --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Julius Senegal has made his point clear enough here, and I have limited time for this article. I have explained the references I have used, nothing else. The article was created many years before I started contributing to it, and according to its log, various people seem to have contributed. Therefore a more proper add would be: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Ruth Dahle (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rather horrible article (Marquis, really?), but that's a reason to edit, not delete. Article needs overhaul, removing suspect references (Marquis, Expertscape, and such). In any case, Bjørklund's Google Scholar metrics (<8600 citations, h-index of 52) is many ties more than what we generally accept as evidence for notability (1000 citations, h-index of 20). Clear meet of NACADEMIC#1. --Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is generated by reliable secondary sources, not by numbers we interpret.
    Again, if he was so notable, then tons of magazines, newspaper etc. would know about him. Instead - silence.
    Please explain acc. to WP:NACADEMIC why he is considered as notable. NO point is applicable. As for #1, nope: ("as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.") --Julius Senegal (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry Julius, but that's how NACADEMIC works. Read the notes. There are usually few if any in-depth secondary sources for academics, but having your publications cited over 8000 times is prime evidence of having a significant impact on your field. --Randykitty (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Nominator might find it useful to swot up on policy before making further nominations in this area, Xxanthippe (talk).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MetArt[edit]

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

An unremarkable private company going about its business. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Awards are not significant. Does not meet WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Companies, Sexuality and gender, Websites, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I din't find reliable sources to leave it on Wikipedia. However, the proper WP:BEFORE should be done here as 23 old company could have some reliable sources to establish its notability. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks non-trivial independent RS coverage to satisfy WP:NORG/WP:ORGDEPTH. WP:BEFORE yields more routine coverage, mostly about MetArt filing piracy lawsuits. The porn trade press coverage repackages what the company says about itself. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so that WP:GNG is not passed. Coverage in porn industry sources is not independent so is not reliable in my view. Also the article is very promotional and borderline G11, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Channel Awesome#The Cinema Snob. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Cinema Snob[edit]

The Cinema Snob (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)

Topic does not appear to meet WP:WEBCRIT. Most inline citations are thecinemasnob.com or youtube.com or blogs. The content is predominantly focused on primary sourcing and may violate WP:PROMO. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per WP:WEBCRIT, WP:IS and WP:PROMO. While doing to a quick search, I couldn't find any sources that were not either the Wikipedia article or just self-made posts about the show.Mike Allen 15:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Channel_Awesome#The_Cinema_Snob per ReaderofthePack. I didn't realize there was a parent article. Mike Allen 02:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It probably does have a cult following, but I don't see any sources for it. He's mentioned when giving reviews for other films, but that's only a one or two line mentions. Nothing in RS we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The lead section is taken entirely from this website. The article are cited sources like this that does not mention the subject in any way. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Popular culture, Internet, and Illinois. Skynxnex (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm not finding real coverage outside of the community's own walled garden. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding the addition of this source, the page (144) mentions The Cinema Snob, but this topic does not appear in the index. However, The Cinema Snob Movie appears in the index, listed as being on page 145. I don't think the source counts toward this topic's notability. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Channel_Awesome#The_Cinema_Snob. I found the same sources and couldn't find anything additional. I'm a little surprised that there isn't more out there, but not overly so. It's kind of par for the course for YT personalities of almost any type or popularity level. In any case, this can just redirect to the main CA page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested above. Plausible search term. TompaDompa (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Channel_Awesome#The_Cinema_Snob per ReaderofthePack. This obviously fail WP:WEBCRIT, being a collection of trivial mentions, interviews, non-independent sources, non-RS, and YouTube videos, my WP:BEFORE only found mentions or routine promotional press releases, e.g., this, but IMO this is still a plausible search term, so redirect is a good WP:ATD. VickKiang (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invision Community[edit]

Invision Community (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 taken to AfD once before and the result was ‘keep.’ However, I respectfully disagree with the arguments made by those !keep voters. Just because something is popular doesn’t make it notable. Apart from this (I’m still skeptical of its reliability), I was unable to find any potentially usable sources. One reference is a far cry from WP:GNG. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 01:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my stance to keep. Thank you for the ping, Modernponderer! I’m still thinning out my watchlist and hadn’t seen your !keep vote. Those are indeed high-quality sources. After browsing through them, it seems to me that what this article needs isn’t deletion, but a massive rewrite (I wouldn't mind helping out with that). Consider my own vote changed. However, I’m not going to WP:WITHDRAW the nomination and close all discussion, as other editors have ‘suggested an outcome besides keep.’ ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 00:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But in addition, I would like to point out that I am quite literally shocked at the dearth of coverage. The other participants here are likely not aware of this, but IPB was absolutely HUGE in the 2000s – it was literally the Windows of Internet forums (which were themselves the social media of that era). I know, WP:MUSTBESOURCES and all, but this is one of those cases where there is very strong cause to reasonably suspect that numerous sources have simply "disappeared" (perhaps still lurking somewhere in the non-searchable Wayback Machine), especially considering we're talking about an online product... Modernponderer (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I remember those times. phpBB, VBulletin and IP Board were the big three of forum solutions (as this article tells https://www.practicalecommerce.com/Forums-Offer-Interactivity ). I can say that at least in Spanish speaking circles it was really popular around 2003, when it was free to download. 190.114.59.113 (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to offer proof. The software was popularized almost by word of mouth during the recovery of the dot com bubble, and almost led the market during the twilight of Web 1.0 and self-hosted social technology in general.
I can say that one of the biggest Half Life communities, where even Gabe Newell had an account, used IPB (1,2), and a Team Member of the phpBB official forum noted that phpBB, IPB and vB were potentially vulnerable (3).
If IPB's article must be deleted, under the same logic phpBB and vB should be deleted too (deleting info about 3 software which almost built the social internet of their short era). 190.114.59.113 (talk) 21:32, 23 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! 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flibbertigibbets, your attempt to find a WP:COI issue with the article based on a single contribution years ago from an IP address that didn't even create the page would make a less WP:AGF-following editor (not me of course) think you might be working for one of Invision's competitors...
Anyways, is there a particular reason why you've completely ignored the references I provided, which together seem to meet WP:GNG? If not, then I would respectfully ask the closer to give your opinion little weight per WP:NOTVOTE. Modernponderer (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The topic from the past relates to a specific Bulletin board systems or software or more likley belongs here Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software. This article speaks to the marketing of Internet community software not even that - The article is reaching for references (including two very weak citations above, a book with 3 reviews on how to use the software package) but that does not necessarily mean that the subject is not notable. The strongest support for notability would be the prior afd discussion. The AFD speaks to a Bulletin board system or software and that is not what the article speaks to.
The reason I tagged the major article edit via 2015 is because that major edit aligns with the three tags on the article.
I don't really know what the article speaks to. I read the first few paragraphs as an advertisement; and the following paragraphs as version release notes. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like to ask the nominator User:HelenDegenerate and User:Quaemenelimbus to please consider the sources I found as well. Two is certainly not many, but it is "multiple" and importantly these are high-quality sources, which are worth more than several low-quality ones. Modernponderer (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the lead could be worked on first - I think that is the way to go.. it might find a home here Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software same developer-principle "Matt Meecham" Ikonboard Flibbertigibbets (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the article is in need of improvement, its lede isn't very clear and comes across as somewhat promotional. I don't think the sourcing provided so far is very strong, but per WP:IAR I'm still voting to keep, because after some googling it looks like it may be as popular as some people are saying it was. A search of "Invision Power Board" finds a number of mentions of it, such as here and here --Tristario (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A search on google news of ""IP.Board" forums" (without the extra quotation marks) also finds quite a few results, mainly about forums getting hacked, such as here, here, and here. So it looks like it may be sufficiently notable Tristario (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the lead to be consistent with the finding here that it is a "forum," and I moved the history section up to the lead. In my opinion, this addresses the marketing tag and it also provides a very concise overview of the topic (which I hope is correct). In my opinion, there is not enough sourcing (which does not mean that the subject is not meaningful or notable). I just cannot establish notability. I would ask that others chip in to try to make this article better. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks like an improvement, thanks Tristario (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Flibbertigibbets, are you still advocating "Delete"? Liz Read! Talk! 23:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz.. I think I would still suggest Delete (or weak delete) because I simply cannot find any indication that this was notable in that the product is/was one of many. There is nothing I can find to support a stand alone article. It might be ok to have a line entry Comparison of Internet forum software. Again, I was reluctant to remove content from the article but did so in a sincere interest to try to make it simpler to understand. I think the article speaks more to the prior AFD discussion which was Keep. When I read the comments here what stood out is IPB was absolutely HUGE in the 2000s <- if that statement was supported I would have no problem saying Keep. There should be some online support for something notable in the early 2000's that can be incorporated into the article. Can the folks that suggest "keep" address the concern? do you need more time? Flibbertigibbets (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The strongest sources mentioned here are the Packt-published book and the MacWorld article. The Wired and practicalecommerce articles are brief mentions; the Polish source doesn't list an author. I'm considering them to not be enough to be quantiful enough. SWinxy (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (mainly for User:Flibbertigibbets but also in general) – I genuinely appreciate your willingness to reconsider your stance on this article. However, it appears to me that all of your points about it are not correct:
  1. Most importantly, whether to keep or delete an article is supposed to be judged by the sources according to Wikipedia policy, not the current state of the page (which can always be improved if it is kept).
  2. Major changes to pages undergoing deletion discussions are strongly discouraged, for multiple reasons such as appearing to WP:GAME the system and potentially wasting valuable editorial time (including your own).
  3. The lede of the page before your changes during this discussion was quite clear, and it is not obvious that removing such large portions of it is an improvement. The same goes for the version history, which is unusually critical for this article because of the version-specific controversies IPB underwent multiple times (this isn't just about routine release notes like for other software).
  4. The description of the sources as "very weak" is... pretty ridiculous. The number of reviews the book has on Amazon is utterly irrelevant per WP:UGC. What is relevant is that the book is no mere guide "on how to use the software package" as you assert, but actually includes in-depth coverage of the history of the software, as well as more general discussion about running an online forum. I strongly suggest that you take a look at the table of contents, which is freely visible on Amazon. The fact that you dismissed the second source without any explanation at all is even more difficult to understand.
  5. Least important, but still worth mentioning: please try to keep discussion on a single issue in one place, and in particular please don't move discussion of an article to a specific user's talk page as it makes participation more difficult for other editors. Modernponderer (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly,
1) We disagree that sufficient sources exist to support an article both in number, reach and quality.
2) per afd docs "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." Even though I do not think the article should be kept, there was an effort made to keep the article by looking for sources, and editing the article.
3) The lead did not even state the subject was about an online forum software something basic to understanding the article as a reader unfamiliar with the subject.
Invision Community is a brand of forum software developed in 2002 and originally marketed as Invision Power Board. The current version of the software was written in PHP and uses MySQL for database storage. Invision Power Services (IPS) was created in 2002 by Charles Warner and Matt Mecham after they left Jarvis Entertainment Group, which had bought the forum software Ikonboard from Mecham. Their first product sold by IPS was the forum software Invision Power Board, which quickly gathered a community of former Ikonboard users. The software has been marketed for over twenty years and has been updated and changed over that timeframe.
vs.
Invision Community originated from Invision Power Board, one of the applications that can now be bought separately and requires IP.Suite. Up until version 3.4 of Invision Power Board the staff at Invision Power Services had gradually expanded their product line with additional community-centered applications like IP.Blog, IP.Gallery and IP.Content. However, IP.Board was always required as many aspects of the core and other applications relied on it. Starting with IP.Suite 4 they decided to abandon IP.Board as their "flagship"-product and unify the version numbering and release schedule for all their applications... more... the reader never knows what the subject is about! the "controversies" in versioning text were obtuse.
4) The position "to keep" will be supported by the sources and content within the article. As above, nobody could reasonably know what the article was about without changing the Lead. Appealing to "person" or "process" does not address the base concern over notability, sources, and article content.
5) AS an open platform (with an edit trail) you have the opportunity to change the article, find sources, revert edits (I am not going to stop you from doing so), address concerns, and/or work in partnership on talk. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Flibbertigibbets, could you please explain why you:
  • quoted the second paragraph from the old lede, which is obviously a supplement to the first one, while not doing the same for your version?
  • ignored my criticism of your assessment of the sources (including one that still lacks any explanation at all)?
  • responded with five points as I did, yet with the last two points on completely different topics? Modernponderer (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For better clarity, I provided comparisons of new and old leads for consideration (after, and before which was unreadable) . It is literally up to you (alone, in partnership with other editors) to take the steps necessary to address the concerns listed in this AFD and they are valid concerns. The place to address concerns is within the article itself, not here. The best argument to be made to "keep" the article would be to work to improve the article' so at the end of the day the concerns listed here get addressed. AS an open platform you have the freedom, support (from me as well), and latitude to change the article, find sources, and revert edits if needed. I can be criticized (I don't mind) but it's just not productive it does not address the issue which is the article. Nothing is stopping anyone from editing this article; that is where "the burden of work is and the burden of proof resides," if the article can never meet standards it needs to be deleted. I did my part (put skin in the game, took some heat) it is up to you! Flibbertigibbets (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Flibbertigibbet's changes to the article are mostly an improvement - it's more clear now, and there is less unsourced content. I couldn't find any policy or guideline that says you shouldn't improve an article during a deletion discussion (maybe I've missed it). I also don't see how their changes could be be construed as WP:GAME-ing in any way, I think good faith should be assumed here Tristario (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tristario, although it is discouraged to remove large amounts of content from articles involved in an AFD during the discussion period, it is common for articles to be improved over the course of the week. In fact, occasionally, I've seen articles completely rewritten during an AFD discussion and then the consensus was to Keep them now that they were improved since the time of nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we even have an essay that is often cited: WP:HEY. Articles are not frozen in place while it's at AfD, and WP:AFD specifically says 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. While there may be some disagreement on whether cutting the article in half is an "improvement", what was removed looks like nothing more than WP:CHANGELOG material, and nobody is going to suggest the deletion of the article just because the minutae of version releases isn't present in the article. Deleting independent reliable sources or doing something negative to the article in an attempt to sway the deletion discussion would be a problem, but this isn't anywhere near what happened here. - Aoidh (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article meets WP:GNG. If we were going solely by what's in the article I would have to agree that notability isn't there, but the Macworld piece above in addition to sources like this and this do show notability. I also found a few papers that go into some of the technical details like this and this (paywall). Unsurprisingly, I couldn't find anything on Newspapers.com but there are certainly books and scholarly papers about this (usually under the "Invision Powerboard"/"Invision Power board" name). - Aoidh (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 14:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Passes WP:GNG, although the article definitely needs improvement. I found another source here, although I'm 50/50 regarding whether it'd be considered a trivial mention. Nonetheless, it could be used to expand the article. Uhai (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of quadrant routes in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania[edit]

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

No indication why this would be a notable subject. Sourced to maps and an unreliable source, doesn't seem to have the subject (as a group) of significant, independent attention. It doesn't look as if any other source ever paid attention to the quadrant routes of Lackawanna County[9][10] Fram (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Pennsylvania. Fram (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neutral - Per WP:GEOROAD, which is part of the notability guideline, “International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable.” However, secondary state highway systems such as quadrant routes in Pennsylvania are better suited to be covered in lists such as this. Past precedent has kept lists of secondary state highways, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas (1–99). That being said, this list isn’t perfect and does need some cleanup. Dough4872 13:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You forgot to quote the next part: "Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject." Fram (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • These are not county, regional, or local roads though. They are state highways that are maintained by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Quadrant routes are a secondary state highway system to the Interstates, U.S. Routes, and State highways with numbers below 1000. Dough4872 13:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's using a very loose definition of "state highway", and makes me wonder what a "county road" would be then. These quadrant routes are county-bound. More importantly, they seem to lack all actual notability (i.e. discussion in sources, not arbitrary "we declare them to be notable" guidelines). Fram (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should the lists be organized by county? That seems arbitrary and presumably means there's plenty of overlap between the various by county lists. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because these "state highways" get renumbered at the county borders. But we may not consider them to be "county roads" though, and they are automatically notable despite these articles being sources solely to maps (see e.g. this article from 2011. Time to give that notability guideline the Sports treatment I guess. Fram (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the numbers also get reused, so you can have e.g. many different "QR1001" raods in Pennsylvania. Fram (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- As stated by Dough4872, these Routes are apart of the State Highway System. (See Pennsylvania State Route System for more details.) The Pennsylvania Roads project needs the assistance to make these lists and stub articles better. Thanks! Jmpenzone (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I haven't found an actual definition of what a quadrant route is, but explanation from the state of how the numbering system works seems to indicate that they are county-level roads which are under state maintenance. I looked along several of these SE of Carbondale, and as far as I can tell they are almost completely unmarked as numbered routes; there are apparently some segment markers which use the numbers, but I didn't come upon any. Quadrant routes numbered from 8000-9999 are various kinds of service roads such as rest areas, truck runaway ramps, and exit roads. I can find no discussion of them as a class outside these explanations of the numbering and segment measuring/location system. The fact seems to be that this class of roads is pretty much non-notable, so I don't see keeping lists of them. Mangoe (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I believe that a capstone article that explains the quadrant routes system would meet the GNG, but I don't think the individual routes that make up each county's system do. –Fredddie™ 19:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I believe this is what "typically" in WP:GEOROAD is supposed to be used for - generally yes, state highways are notable, but it does not necessarily extend to exceptional cases like secondary state highways. Since this was already condensed to a table and doesn't provide any enlightenment that's not a good sign. Open to convincing but I'm not sure this is worth keeping. --Rschen7754 01:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To provide more context about quadrant routes in Pennsylvania, they are a secondary state highway system with numbers only unique within a county and can be repeated in different counties. Routes in the 1000s to the 4000s are roads assigned by quadrants, sometimes only bridges or a collection of bridges along a local road. Numbers in the 6000s are old alignments of other roads. Numbers in the 8000s are interchange ramps while numbers in the 9000s are truck escape ramps, rest areas, wye connections, etc. These route numbers are not signed with traditional route markers but with little white signs. In addition, the route numbers are only used in PennDOT sources such as maps and straight-line diagrams and are rarely used by the general public, who typically refer to quadrant routes by their names. As Fredddie suggested, I think having a capstone article about the quadrant route system that explains the numbering system is a good idea, but list by counties may be a little excessive as the numbers are rarely used outside PennDOT. Right now we have lists for 24 of the 67 counties in Pennsylvania, including Lackawanna. If we choose to not keep these lists, perhaps we should bundle the other 23 lists into this discussion. {{Pennsylvania Quadrant Routes}} shows all the lists that have been created. Dough4872 03:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said in my !v, I think an article about quadrant routes, but not the routes themselves, would meet the GNG. As such I started Draft:Quadrant routes in Pennsylvania. –Fredddie™ 17:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although quadrant routes are state maintained, they individually function more like county highways and collectively like 67 individual systems, not a statewide system. Although there may be press on the general concept or establishment of the quadrant route system, an individual county's quadrant route system is unlikely to have such coverage. Therefore, the lists are not notable and should be deleted. If an individual quadrant route has press coverage, that quadrant route can have a standalone article. VC 05:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Village Yumbe[edit]

Escape Village Yumbe (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 hotel (it is called "village" but it is a hotel). Fram (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result was no consensus to delete, or otherwise remove from mainspace, noting that late participation tended towards keeping (or changing to keep) based on improvements to the article. BD2412 T 02:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of Africa FM (Uganda)[edit]

Voice of Africa FM (Uganda) (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 radio station. The sources cited merely document its existence, and a search finds nothing beyond the usual directory listings and social media accounts etc. Fails WP:GNG, the core requirement in WP:NRADIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Africa, and Uganda. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return to Draft (Draft:Voice of Africa (Uganda) Note: No FM.) and SALT. This is not ready for main article space, and the (nearly) sole editor keeps moving it. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: Fails WP:GNG. I am not persuaded that the minor claim to notability Historically, it was the first Moslem radio in the country is sufficient. I am not keen on returning this to Draft. That is simply a 'deletion by the back door' in the case of this article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: After reading Tcr25's plea below to re-visit the article, I have done so. I have assessed the references as they stand currently and regret that I am unable to change my view. I am content to be alerted should better references be found. I emphasise better rather than more. Indeed, fewer references with better quality are more likely to change my mind than a surfeit of references. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for giving it a look. I'd note that the references added are better (newspapers and a book, as opposed to directory listings and social media accounts) and they're more only because more specific information was added (and thus needed to be sourced). — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify (not completely sure about SALTing). (After reworking it some, change !vote to Keep.) A few things do pop up about it in regards to its early funding by Ghaddafi and this article discussing some fallout around the station management after Ghaddafi's death would imply that there likely is other coverage of it out there (probably in offline sources). It needs work (I've added this source and another one about the station's relationship with Islamic musicians), but I think it should pass GNG. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    SALT prevents the user from circumventing the AFC review process. Since the primary author of this article has unilaterally moved this into main article space multiple times, I have no doubt they will continue to do so unless this is SALTed. Likewise, if deleted. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per WP:HEY, I've done some reworking of the article (it's still pretty stubby though and needs more work/improvement). Would appreciate those who've !voted taking a second look. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets WP:GNG per Carter's improvements. SBKSPP (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As improved, it needs the requirements. Further objection regarding notability might be construed as indication of Western-centric bias. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:43, 13 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. I think those advocating Delete put forth a more persuasive argument about the inadequacy of the sources used in the article and those cited here. Liz Read! Talk! 04:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Playground Sessions[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NCORP References are routine business news, PR, press-releases scope_creepTalk 09:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Education, and New York. AllyD (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm also seeing a couple other sources from USA Today [11] and Polygon [12] alongside what is in the article. I find it hard to believe that several reliable publications are all PR coverage. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So the company director and founder in both the references, demonstrating the software in a classic piece of PR. Both of them fail WP:ORGIND. scope_creepTalk 15:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How? I don't believe the authors are affiliated in any way nor is there any proof that the content was developed by them. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. Its classic PR. More so, because its the company founder doing the work, its fails WP:ORGIND. References for company's need to be in-depth, signicant and independent per WP:SIRS, which is part of WP:NCORP. Those two references are not independent. That is the company director holding sessions to promote his business. So they are not references, that satisfy WP:SIRS. That is the core problem with the article. The first references, lists the costs of the services, which means it comes from a press-release or the company website. They are junk references. scope_creepTalk 15:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NCORP - Quincy Jones and Harry Connick Jr. promoting their product in USA Today 2 interviews that also include a basic product description do not provide WP:ORGIND nor WP:CORPDEPTH to support notability - it is WP:PROMO. Similarly, CEO Chris Vance promoting the product in a brief post on Polygon based on the company's self-description fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, and is churnalism from a Mashable post (also a source in the article) that substantially relies on Vance and a basic description of the product. The article also includes non-RS WP:MEDIUM, primary trademark information, and recycled press releases about the product launch published in multiple outlets: Fast Company, Jet, Hollywood Reporter, TechCrunch, that substantially rely on quotes from Jones and Vance and a basic product description. An online search finds press releases, non-RS review sites, and more promotional content. There appears to be insufficient sources with WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND to support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I was the one who deprodded this. I didn't feel the sources were bad enough to justify PROD. They are largely written in a style I personally find grating, but USA Today, The Hollywood Reporter, and CNET are all considered reliable, which tips the balance from "they paid all these places to write about them" to "these places interviewed the obvious sources while writing about them". ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 21:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether a source is paid for the promotion is not the only consideration - these sources do not offer significant coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH that is independent per WP:ORGIND. The WP:NCORP guideline helps us identify content to exclude per the second prong of WP:N, i.e. per WP:NOT policy - in the WP:ORGCRIT section, it states The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. A reliable source is not enough to support notability when it relies on promotional quotes from people connected to the company and basic descriptions of the product. Beccaynr (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the December 27, 2018 CNET source in the article quotes Connick, the product website, a Playground Sessions spokesperson, a Flowkey (competitor product) spokesperson talking about their product, a Simply Piano (competitor product) spokesperson talking about their product, and basic descriptions of products and pricing, which lacks independence per WP:ORGIND, because it regurgitates the promotional narrative from related parties, and lacks sufficient WP:CORPDEPTH because it does not provide an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization.
    Similarly, the briefer January 21, 2019 USA Today source quotes the product, Connick, prices, and promotes an interview with Connick, and the April 18, 2013 USA Today source is more about Jones generally, not Playground Sessions, while the brief coverage in the April 18, 2013 Hollywood Reporter source is based on quotes from Jones and Vance, as well as basic product information, including pricing, before it moves off-topic to Jones' induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and his birthday. Beccaynr (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. USA Today and the like may be reliable, but the specific articles by those organizations that are being cited here are not independent, per Beccaynr's initial comment. The article's subject has no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which is what the article needs to establish notability. - Aoidh (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. As pointed out above, we require sources which contain in-depth independent content on the company. None of the sources meet the criteria as they rely entirely on information provided by the company or people affiliated with the company (fails ORGIND). HighKing++ 16:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raaja Kanwar[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are profiles and passing mentions. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 10:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [13], [14] and [15] are enough to establish notability.Puvasoca (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC) — Puvasoca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Founding a company and conducting insider trading are not particularly notable activies. Both are fairly common. What can be used is WP:SECONDARY coverage which is completely lacking here. scope_creepTalk 16:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 05:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph H. Kilmann[edit]

Ralph H. Kilmann (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. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 10:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 15:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mariz Kemal[edit]

Mariz Kemal (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. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 10:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 09:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Hunt[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Allen Hunt (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. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 10:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Partofthemachine: I thought so, too, so I looked a little more. Unfortunately, this and a half-dozen other AfDs from the same editor appear to come from a spree of BEFOREless BLP deletion nominations. I encourage a passing admin to weigh in. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article meets WP:GNG. No comment on the promotional tone of the article, as that can be improved via editing. I'll see if I can add some Newspapers.com clippings to those AJC references, but notability seems to be there. - Aoidh (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gary P. Gillum[edit]

Gary P. Gillum (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)

Being librarian-emeritus of any university doesn't establish notability. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 10:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per below. --Jayron32 16:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32: what sources in the article are you seeing that satisfy GNG? The current sources all appear to be of compromised independence. Just going down the list the collection oh his papers is not independent, the profile on the Social Networking Archives Cooperative is not independent, a YouTube lecture given by the subject is not independent, his profile at the Religious Studies Center is not independent, his profile at FairMormon is not independent, his profile at the The Interpreter Foundation is not independent, his listing as a board member is not independent, his profile at the Utah Baroque Ensemble is not independent, the coverage from the Utah Valley Symphony is not independent, once again his papers are not independent, the bio section of book written by Gillum is not an independent source. That is the entirety of the sources currently used, not a single one count towards GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, like Bishonen I'm failing to find significant independent coverage of the subject. Admittedly that is surprising, I had thought that it would be possible to find some given the length of the subject's career but if it exists its in a format which is not making itself presentable to us. If anyone finds such coverage (perhaps offline or in in a newspaper archive) please ping me and I will reconsider my vote. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Religion. Skynxnex (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google Scholar seems to substantiate that there are a lot of published sources, but I'm not sure if this is enough to meeet WP:PROF or not. Mormons are generally regarded as pariahs in intellectual and educational circles, so the lack of RS'es commenting on him may be systemic bias. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's just not true (at least in the United States), I've had multiple Mormon professors at secular universities who published widely in the mainstream press. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same. Back in the mid 1990s, I had multiple Mormon chemistry professors, one of whom was the department chair, and they were well published and well respected. I went to school no where near Utah. Mormon theologians may not have much standing among the greater community of Christian theologians, but I've never heard that faithful practitioners of Mormonism faced any particular kind of lack of standing in any other field. --Jayron32 18:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, please consider my caution applied in this narrower scope: He's a librarian at BYU writing about Mormon theology, apparently. Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the article is somewhat interesting, none of the sources used establish notability, and a quick search for additional potential sources to help establish notability has turned up nothing. At this time, I don't see any way this article can be kept since it doesn't meet any notability requirements. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added a few newspaper articles just now, but I'm not sure if that's enough to establish notability. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's my quick take on the sources you just added:
    • Payson Chronicle is the most convincing as it's independent and pretty detailed. But I'm not sure how much weight small-town newspapers are given on Wikipedia.
    • Springville Herald is also independent, but I have the same question about local newspapers.
    • American Fork Citizen doesn't establish notability because it's just a passing mention. I wouldn't use that as a source.
    • Mormon History is reliable, independent, and from a reputable and independent publisher; but the mention of Gillum is only passing, even though it's acknowledging that he did important work.
    ~Awilley (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per comments above. Sources are primarily or closely related to the subject. All publications are specialized religious rather than reliable sources. Clearly doesn't meet general notability or scholar criteria. Banks Irk (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I can only see measuring this person against NACADEMIC. His books and articles are very little cited (the most with 29 cites, many with 1 or 2). The dilemma is not having a yardstick to measure academic attention in the category of theology, much less specific Mormon theology. I add that a number of his works are bibliographies, which take a lot of effort but generally do not themselves create new knowledge. Lamona (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I am feeling your dilemma. I can't help but think that a scholar who has edited or contributed to over 100 books from legitimate publishers has met the standard for notability, even if their field of expertise is narrow. I started to look for reviews and then realized the challenge--books about Mormon theology, published by a Mormon press, reviewed by Brigham Young's journals, and cited by articles in journals of Mormon thought. If the book reviews were independent, I would argue to update and keep. Lacking that, this article comes across as a vanity piece written by well-meaning family or friends. Can someone with access to a university journal database double check my findings on book reviews? Rublamb (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Rublamb, Gillum wrote some 50 short book reviews for Library Journal between 1993 and 2008. The search results are difficult to cite in a reference though. He also reviewed Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context and Significance for Journal of Religious and Theological Information in 2005. He wrote two entries for the Encyclopedia of Religion, Communication, and Media in 2006. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rachel Helps (BYU): Do you happen to have a list of the published reviews of Gillum's works? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't, but I did summarize two reviews of the first volume of the collected works of Nibley over on the Hugh Nibley page. I could probably dig up reviews for vols 2 and 3, but they are probably more about Nibley than Gillum. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretfully, weak delete. Gillum does not appear to pass WP:NPROF per above commments. He also does not appear to pass WP:NBASIC. He is the subject of significant coverage in The Payson Chronicle, an independent reliable WP:NEWSORG. I'm concerned about Springville Herald; the coverage reads like a press release smaller newspapers tend to directly republish mundane "man appointed to local org" press releases of this sort fairly often, making me doubt the source's independence in that particular piece. As such, I don't see evidence that he is the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. As such, I don't see evidence that WP:NBASIC is met from the sources presented by others, and my own online searching is not able to find anything that would contribute towards WP:NBASIC. The fact that BYU has his papers in its archive for academic study means that he's probably going to get there once someone actually publishes a substantial work about those papers and what Gillum did when creating them, but he doesn't yet appear to meet the relevant notability criteria; the article appears to have been made WP:TOOSOON and we can't judge notability based on the exogenous chance that someone is going to publish something about him at some point in the future. For that reason, I also have no objection to restoring this article into the draftspace or userspace via once additional significant coverage of Gillum is published. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 05:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Gretarsson[edit]

Felix Gretarsson (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:BIO1E. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 10:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 10:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yuriy Dubrovin (actor)[edit]

Yuriy Dubrovin (actor) (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 done any significant role in the listed films. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 10:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not true. There is a significant coverage of him in Russian-language sources. Also, he has an important state award that means that he satisfies per rules criteria. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added sources indicating notability, as well as some text. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not quite a WP:HEY–this AfD was flawed originally–but the additions since the nomination have assured that this BLP is suitable for inclusion in accordance with WP:GNG. Appears to be an instance of failed WP:BEFORE. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, besides notability, the article as originally "written" by User:Thriley was absolutely below minimal acceptable standards for the mainspace, I would had moved it back to draft space until it had a minimum of text and context, or I would had even supported a deletion per WP:TNT ("if the article's content is useless but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article" as "people tend to be more inclined to fill red links"). Now thanks to the improvements of other users it is barely acceptable, but I am a bit shocked in 2022 people still create 1-line biographies. Cavarrone 07:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Dubrovin is covered in many Russian news webpages for his numerous cameo roles and has an acknowledged state award (see examples of notability in Wikipedia:The GNG and notability for actors). I added some references according to WP:GNG. However, I believe that the article should be significantly expanded to better demonstrate the subject's notability. ThegaBolt (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gulshan Kumar Film and Television Institute of India[edit]

Gulshan Kumar Film and Television Institute of India (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. Can't find any news source about the article. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 10:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TIPA Corp[edit]

TIPA Corp (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, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. Routine business, funding news, PR and press-releases. scope_creepTalk 09:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Uziel302: Are you specifically talking about this article [34]? The low-citation article (In a low-citation field right-enough) that "the packaging was supplied by TIPA" and "the packaging was manufactured by TIPA". None of those two passing mention indicate why it is notable, they merely verify it exists. scope_creepTalk 11:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets examine the first block of references which are 12 entries for this startup.
  • [35] A trade publication where you need to apply to be included in the FoodTech 500. Not an independent source. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • [36] Routine annoucement of expansion. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business Press-release. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
  • [37] Patents. Non-RS.
  • [38] From a press-release. Fails WP:SIRS
  • [39] An X of Y article. 11 Finalists of Calcalist’s Foodtech Innovation Competition. A kind of industrial trade award driven by KPMG. More PR. Not independent. Its a startup contest. Fails WP:SIRS
  • [40] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS
  • [41] TIPA site. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
  • [42] TIPA listing. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
  • [43] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • [44] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • [45] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • [46] Company profile written by the company. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS

Out of the the 12 references, 3 are funding news, 8 are not independent from the company, 1 is non-rs. Not a single on these references are compliant per policy as being indepdent, significant, reliable and secondary sources. They are junk references. scope_creepTalk 14:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Reads like compilation of promotional materials 🧐. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore NCORP guidelines apply. Cannot fault the analysis performed by scope_creep above - topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 19:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Four Sisters Winery[edit]

Four Sisters Winery (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 WP:NORG, found no useful sources that were of a non-promotional variety in reliable sources. Suspect this was a COI article from the beginning. Equine-man (talk) 07:19, 29 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! 07:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • WeaklyStrongly keep AND comment, A: I don't think this was a COI, the author seems to be a guy who just likes NJ alcohol related articles and the 4 non documenting (ie NJ law or links to things like cold climate grapes) are solid sources (ie the Daily Record, Warren Record and Courrier Post, regional papers). So I would say it meets WP:NORG by there. OP did get me to do some research though on a local thing (and I fully declare I have no finical or economic or any interest in this field, this is just very odd to see a somewhat local article!). Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And let me see if it meets independent coverage
    source from the paper of record in NJ, the Star Ledger so thats 1 source from a reliable local paper.
    so this is minus 1 on this merrit, even if this is the NYTimes, since its an incidental mention and not the focus of the article
    show/Association coverage so its not an independent source
    is a local paper, independent
    Business News is sort of like Business Insider and everyone who is 'deep' into Wikipedia or any online articles knows that Business Insider is ... a problematic source BUT its a source
    another local source. I feel OP, you didn't read this, because I actually was trying to break it down, get the sources, even weigh them. The books are local so I have to do fieldwork to get them (and the author recently died so it might be actual field work in NJ(!), but it does meet WP:NORG on the merrits. Thank you and I am not trying to fight ok Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in light of sources added establishing notability per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Agree that we need to assume good faith in this case; it didn't read to me as particularly promotional and it's clear the article creator has created many, many articles on related topics. For SIGCOV, I would point to the 2003 feature article in the Daily Record ("It's all in the family for Four Sisters Winery") and the New Jersey Wineries book published by Arcadia Publishing. There are many other sources cited in the article besides, which help in rounding out the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my opinion, the book mentions barely scrape by CORPDEPTH but they do, therefore sources exist that meet the criteria for notability and topic is notable. HighKing++ 16:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very marginal case, as the New York Times article only mentions the winery briefly and the articles in the Daily Record (New Jersey) and The Star-Ledger, while being substantially about the winery, are arguably local papers rather than regional ones. Nonetheless, cumulatively the subject of the article seems to meet WP:SIGCOV. Fiachra10003 (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FIG World Rankings[edit]

FIG World Rankings (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 ranking system. I cannot find any significant coverage of this ranking in independent RS. The article as it currently exists is 100% primary sourced. (t · c) buidhe 07:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would also support a redirect to Artistic Gymnastics World Cup where this ranking is already discussed. (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:22, 29 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! 07:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not covered in independent sources. LibStar (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Goldberg[edit]

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

An article, created by an WP:SPA on an individual that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. None of the sources included in the article are actually any kind of coverage on him that would establish notability - they are simply short interviews, mostly of the sort that are used to fill up time on slow news days. Searching for sources did not turn up any kind of coverage that was actually about him that would establish notability. The article was previously WP:PRODed shortly after creation, but was de-prodded by the article creator, so it has to go to AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Astrology. Rorshacma (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This Randy Goldberg (not to be confused with the co-founder of Bombas) seems pretty clearly non-notable: a few non-independent interviews/passing quotations are the only sources we have. There's no in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources, so he fails the GNG, as far as I can tell. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, by the way: the initial PROD was a BLPPROD, and per WP:BLPPROD BLP articles may still be nominated for standard PROD...even if an article has previously been flagged for BLPPROD and declined, so in theory the article was still PROD-eligible (although coming to AfD is fine too, of course). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not finding sources that would support notability. The WaPo article listed here is in the local "Metro" section. To me that says that the newspaper did not consider it worthy of being in the general publication. There are a few paragraphs in that but that's only one semi-interesting source. Lamona (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Riley[edit]

Josh Riley (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:NPOL. Ran for and did not win elective office. Not otherwise notable. Majority of coverage relates to his unsuccessful campaign. Marquardtika (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed fails WP:NPOL. Johnnycorns5354 (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Hobit, contact me when you want this article userfied. Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dark elves in fiction[edit]

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

This... is bad. Dark elves are likely notable (although we don't seem to have an article, just a disambig?). They also don't exist outside fiction, so this is a fork of that (potential?) article. Unreferenced, too (well, it has two footnotes, one to a RPG book, and one to a shop selling RPG books, with the product's description). It is effectively a WP:ORish essay mixed with the WP:IPC/MOS:POPCULT/WP:INDISCRIMINATE violation in the form of list of media that mention the concept of dark elves. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Popular culture. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:TNT as a purely unencyclopedic article of original research. (Although since Dark Elves are already fictional, it doesn't make much sense anyway). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:TNT. I was thinking just based on the name that maybe a rename would be in order, but this entire article is like a problematic "in popular culture" section split off into its own article. The entire article is just a series of unsourced trivia about appearances of dark elves in various fictional properties. I think the article title "dark elves in fiction" is supposed to differentiate it from "dark elves in mythology" but it seems unnecessary. It's possible that this topic might be notable under a different name, but nothing about this iteration of the article is salvageable. - Aoidh (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as opposed to dark elves in reality? This subject is already covered at elves, and someone can expand on dark elves there once they find appropriate sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh. I get the TNT arguments. But I actually think that with sourcing, some organizational moves and some more context, this could be a reasonable article on Dark Elves. The sourcing is trivial for almost everything in the article. keep Second choice: move to my user space. I was looking for something like this to work on over the break. Hobit (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decent sources: [47] is basically what our article should look like (but with sources). It could be used as a source. There are also things like [48] which have serious and good coverage ("Dark Elves" gets dozens of hits, I'd have to get this on interlibrary loan). Other academic sources that appear promising include: [49], [50], [51]. So yeah, I think this is a fine starting point for a real article. With a rename it certainly meets WP:N. And while the existing text isn't great, there is a lot of useful stuff there. Hobit (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If you want to rewrite this now, be bold and go ahead an ping us when you think it's ready for a re-review. Otherwise, of course, I am totally fine with this being userfied in your space, to be restored when you finish said rewrite. The point is that the current state of the article is not acceptable (up to and including the very name). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Hobit PS. Re Interlibrary loan - check Internet Archive library first, can save time sometimes. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks however I'm not doing anything other than work and family for the next week or so. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Features of the Marvel Universe. Split on the numbers, but those in favour of deletion consistently made the case that sources for this article are lacking, whereas arguments for keeping relied on an assertion that sources must exist which ultimately hasn't been substantiated. – Joe (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Midtown High School (comics)[edit]

Midtown High School (comics) (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 location from comic books that is just a plot summary + list of appearances, with no reception/discussion of significance (although there is a tiny history section that is reasonably referenced, but I'll stress - it describes the location, it does not assert it is important). My WP:BEFORE failed to locate anything outside mentions in passing in context of various plot sumamries, and as such I am afraid this fails WP:GNG. A redirect to Features of the Marvel Universe could be considered, but I'll note that page doesn't mention this school (or any other below university level), so actually, a merge (of the history section?) might be appropriate. HOWEVER, do note I consulted the sources cited and I cannot verify the claim that " According to comic book historian Peter Sanderson, Lee based the fictional school on Forest Hills High School in New York City" (I can't find it on page 30 of the book cited, accessible through GBooks, or elsewhere in that books with my search). The other claim (" In the Tom Holland Spider-Man films, the Midtown High School closely resembles an actual elite NYC public high school: the Bronx High School of Science.") seems verifiable with source cited [52], but I wouldn't call this a SIGCOV discussion of this fictional entity (it's just mentioned in two sentences of that article). PS. Previous AfD from 2015: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midtown High School did not impress me with a bunch of WP:ITSIMPORTANT claims and poor quality sources. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Education. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:TNT. A complete mess of fancruft. Even assuming it is notable, it would have to be completely rewritten. However, I have my heavy doubts that it is notable. The sources brought up in the 2015 discussion are all clearly trivial coverage, WP:REFBOMBing if you will. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep and improve. It would be odd if a location central to numerous blockbuster films (as well as TV series, even putting aside the comic books) was not itself the subject of coverage sufficient to maintain an article. No objection to merging to an appropriate target, but I don't think that would be an MCU-exclusive page due to its appearances in many other media. Perhaps an article on locations in Spider-Man media, which would at least include the house where Peter was raised by Aunt May and Uncle Ben, and the Oscorp headquarters (which currently has its own article, not particularly better than this one). BD2412 T 19:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe – I feel this doesn't warrant anything beyond a paragraph over there, unless significant notability can be proved. 02:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge or redirect per WP:GNG. There isn't significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, but I see a few editors have suggested a good redirect target. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge target since there is some ambiguity about it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep and improve for the same reasons of @BD2412. Redjedi23 (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am leaning on Keep as well. It appears on everything Spidey related lately. It is my second guess that it is potentially notable if research is done. And there are redirects of fictional characters that are a part of this fictional school last time I checked. We don’t need these redirects to redirect to another redirect of a settings list article IMO. Jhenderson 777 06:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's really so important we should have a section in Features of the Marvel Universe to redirect it too... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, clearly split betweenthose wanting to Merge this article and those advocating Keeping it. Maybe a few more days will help make consensus clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zego (company)[edit]

Zego (company) (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. Generic. Refs are routine business news, profiles, PR, funding news and routine annoucements. scope_creepTalk 18:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a legitimate company with over 400 members of staff based in London, who provide insurance service alongside the likes of admiral, and Aviva in the UK. The wiki page should exist.It is not promotional, the references include some large publications and are not all PR if it all. It is overly harsh to continuously remove the wiki page, wikipedia should exist to service web users. 2A02:C7C:6E04:A700:1C7B:A47D:2210:4AE5 (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. We require each reference to contain in-depth information *on the company* and "Independent Content". None of the references in the article or that I can find meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, most are regurgitated PR/announcements in one for or another, the odd quote and a couple of industry prizes that are not considered significant for our purposes, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 11:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe you are taking wikipedias rules too literally. Wikipedia is a source of information to help people. Zego is insuring the vast majority of Uber eats and Uber drivers in the UK. How can a wikipedia page which gives insight into the company not be an asset to people? There are far smaller and companies with wikipedia pages.
A quick search on google for food delivery insurance or private hire insurance will show Zego is competing with Admiral, Churchill and AXA who are large insurance companies in the UK who all have wikipedia pages. Rather than just deleting the page please advise on how zego can maintain a presence on wikipedia, which is designed to help users. Not for moderators to overly police. Zego does not want to promote itself by wikiapedia but just have a page to show who it is, as with any other wiki page.
Rather than deleting a page, please look into the company its staff, its insurance polices and where Zego sits in the UK insurance market and reconsider the choice to delete.
I want the page to exist to serve users and Zego is not interested in promoting itself, as a moderator please can you advise how we this can be worked out. 2A02:C7C:6E04:A700:7CD9:BA82:8ADD:5766 (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Lets unpack the above. First, the criteria for establishing notability of a company is a rather simple test and is based on the premise that if a company is really notable, then somebody unaffiliated with the company will have (independently) written an in-depth article about it. Coverage is largely prompted by PR or an announcement or a report and usually repeats information provided by the company. That doesn't count - unless the journalist provided in-depth information as a result of their own research or investigation. All of the information should be contained in the source. For example, you've pointed to a link from FT which ranks Zego as the 14th fastest growing company in Europe .... but trying to draw any inferences from a mere mention and inclusion in a list is not what we do here. If being ranked 14th, etc, is notable, then somebody else, somewhere, will have written an in-depth article. Where is it? That's the real source. While you can use the FT article to support adding this information to the article, it doesn't meet our criteria for establishing notability. Your other sources suffer from similar issues - none meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 11:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is a WP:SPA who has made no other edits to Wikipedia. Editor has stated on their talk page that they are an employee of the company. scope_creepTalk 10:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Crunchbase is Non-RS, the Amazon ref is non-rs, the uber is a company FAQ page and is primary, cbinsights is a business profile information listing page and WP:PRIMARY and the FT is a profiles listing that fact that is growing quickly. None of the pass WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 11:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bougainville – Our Island Our Fight[edit]

Bougainville – Our Island Our Fight (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. No significant coverage LibStar (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I found this, unsure if it's RS, it says at the bottom it's a wordpress site [53], so I assume not. Oaktree b (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Oceania, and Australia. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Historically significant documentary on the Bougainville Civil War. Won best documentary at WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival. This review from an academic journal, several years after the initial publicity, was easy to find; unfortunately Australian (let alone PNG) online sourcing for coverage around 1999 has long been dicey and quite challenging but with a bit of digging I'd expect a good deal more. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Sydney Morning Herald reviewed it when it was broadcast nationally by SBS TV in 1997 - Jenkins, David (15 December 1997), "BOUGAINVILLE - Our Island, Our Fight", The Sydney Morning Herald. Australian Screen Education, no.31, 2003 Autumn, p.141(2) (ISSN: 1443-1629) contained a 910 word review [54]. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardus Aditya[edit]

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

No indication that any prose coverage of this subject exists, does not meet WP:GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 00:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. This is borderline, but there is a weak consensus to keep as opposed to merge, and strong consensus against deletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rasha al-Harazi[edit]

Rasha al-Harazi (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)

Unfortunate death, but al-Harazi was non-notable as a journalist before her death. Does not fulfill WP:JOURNALIST or WP:VICTIM. All sources only cover her in-depth after she was killed, with some initially referring to her as "a pregnant Yemeni journalist". Mooonswimmer 02:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. So is there a proposal to Merge this article with List of journalists killed in Yemen?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested seems ok with me. Not enough coverage for an article by itself. Oaktree b (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a year later she is still making news and inspiring events:
  1. https://alsharaeanews.com/2022/11/13/68281/
  2. https://www.sada-alsahel.net/news/96719
  3. https://ye-voice.com/news180697.html

(You can just use google translate to turn her name into Arabic and then search Google news for arabic sources to see more) I'm adopting WP:COAL so won't be monitoring for replies. CT55555 (talk) 00:09, 23 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! 01:52, 29 November 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! 00:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Seems ok, I'm not convinced the sources given above are enough for GNG. already !voted, so this is more of a comment I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Oaktree b, you expressed your opinion, thanks for being a regular participant here at AFD. We could use a few dozen more. Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like User:Schwede66, I'm finding lots of sources about her murder in English. A gsearch for '"Rasha al-Harazi" death -wikipedia' returns 381 ghits, many of them from RS. Based on the resonance from more recent sources provided by CT55555, I'm seeing enough for at least an article about her murder. While the subject should surely be included in the list article linked above, sufficient material upon which to base an article exists, IMHO. My limited ability with Arabic hinders my effort to evaluate the numerous sources revealed by the search CT55555 suggests. BusterD (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel compelled to add that nobody in this multi-week process has advocated a deletion outcome except the nominator. BusterD (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, BusterD, I saw it as divided between Keeping the article and Merging it. Thanks for offering your opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_December_6&oldid=1127298043"