Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

°

< December 07 December 09 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. BusterD (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life-cycle cost analysis[edit]

Life-cycle cost analysis (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 appear to meet WP:GNG. I am also questioning if this is also written like an essay, not an article. Sarrail (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a valid economic concept, and There are thousands of these pieces. It does need a cleanup (I would not mind adopting this), but is isn't original research. This is one essay thats a basic example Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a common and fundamental concept in business eg. what is the cost of an EV vehicle over its lifetime, is LCCA. The problem with the article it has not been well developed. Not a reason to delete it though. -- GreenC 22:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article meets WP:GNG per WngLdr34's comment above, and the writing style may need to be addressed but that's not an issue for AfD. Nothing about this article warrants deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per GreenC's reasoning. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient coverage is trivial to find (just click the JSTOR search button). Also, "badly written article" is not a valid deletion rationale. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is used by government websites and colleges. https://www.fs.usda.gov/t-d/pubs/htmlpubs/htm08732839/page01.htm https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/59128 https://sustainable.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Guidelines_for_Life_Cycle_Cost_Analysis.pdf Dream Focus 18:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and comments follow: I came across this article and after reading it I decided a rewrite was in order - I had to remove the copyright violations. Please read my edit summary if you have questions. It is now just stubbed, so I hope some other editors may continue the process. Bruxton (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been rewritten and the subject is notable. It is a valid economic term. Lightburst (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can tell you this is a notable subject. This was significantly covered in my engineering economics class during my curriculum in college. [1] [2] [3]. This is one of the most absurd AfDs I've ever seen, quite frankly. Did you do any check for sources before nominating? I think it's starting to SNOW... Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google Scholar search finds many refs, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, these are SIGCOV and WP:RS in addition to the refs others linked. Therefore, this topic clearly passes WP:GNG. VickKiang (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Life-cycle assessment The topic is notable but there is no content here worth keeping. There are three sources here and 2 of them are about Life-cycle assessment, which is jargon for environmental assessment in contrast to this term which is jargon for financial assessment. If those two sources are merged, and they should be, that leaves one citation backing one sentence and several sentences without citations. I doubt the accuracy of all of this remaining content. I do not object to an article existing, and needed a rewrite is not a reason to delete an article from Wikipedia, but someone needs to draft a couple of sentences and citations if they want this kept. All of Vick's sources are valid but someone would need to bring them into this article. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 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 speedy delete. Pretty much the textbook definition of WP:CSD#G11. Kinu t/c 21:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wellspring Preparatory Academy[edit]

Wellspring Preparatory Academy (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)

Promotional article written by the owner of the Academy. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:09, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Angola Men's Handball League squads[edit]

2016 Angola Men's Handball League squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article violates WP:NOR and WP:V as source 1 and source 2, the sole references for the article, do not even confirm the content. I am not able to find anything that does verify the content. More importantly, the topic doesn't seem to meet WP:LISTN as I am unable to find any evidence that there are independent sources discussing these sportspeople as a group. Searching the contents of this article only seems to take us to this Wikipedia article.

I oppose merging as the article is essentially unsourced and contains info about living people. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:55, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josie Cummings[edit]

Josie Cummings (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, WP:NSPORTS and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:28, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Costa[edit]

Paula Costa (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, WP:NSPORTS and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:25, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jefftho Joachin[edit]

Jefftho Joachin (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:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:13, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ledson Jerome[edit]

Ledson Jerome (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:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:10, 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 , albeit not strongly. This does not preclude a merger discussion if folks want to continue that Star Mississippi 04:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Tiffany[edit]

Cyclone Tiffany (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 pass WP:NEVENTS or WP:NWeather guidelines. Caused minimal damage and but one fatality. Can be merged into 2021–22 Australian region cyclone season (WP:NOPAGE). Drdpw (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Science, and Australia. Drdpw (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think there is encyclopedic value to be found here, and there was fairly notable landfalling impacts in AUS. I'd disagree if this was a meandering cyclone in the ocean, but I elect to keep. Gnomatique (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep it impacted and made 2 landfalls in australia, with one being as a cat 1 storm (or cat 2 in australian scale) and brought heavy rainfall and flooding reports Rainbow Galaxy POC (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Per nomination. Not notable enough for an article per WP:NWEATHER and it doesn’t justify any type of special cases. Noting the article was created by a now blocked WP:SOCK account (does not qualify for G5). Unless someone can find a valid reason to satisfy a “special case” as to why this should be kept, there is absolutely no way this should be an article. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is an argument that WP:DEPTH and duration of coverage is inadequate to make it a notable event, however, in addition to contemporaneous coverage of the cyclone's life, there has been subsequent coverage relating to insurance claims resulting from it. KEEP I think. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
$50,000 AUD ($36,000 USD) in insurance claims does not make it notable either. Drdpw (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided My suspicion here is that @Elijahandskip and Drdpw: is being too harsh here, as Tiffany seems to have had a significant indirect impact on Australia. In particular, I note that Tiffany impacted the majority of Australia, washed away railroads and seems to have had a significant impact on Australia as a remnant low. I also feel that WPWX/WPTC need to have a conversation about what tropical cyclones are notable for articles, as this is one of those marginal cases.Jason Rees (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: In fact, WPTC has had the conversation about tropical cyclone notability. A decently long one in fact with multiple editor inputs. That was how WP:NWEATHER was created. Whether or not editors gave input for it, there was a whole lot of talk page messages and alerts about WP Weather creating a notability page. I will note that you did give input on the notability page as well. There is two ways a TC is notable enough for an article. 1 is fairly obvious where no editor on earth would question “Should this have an article?” Like Hurricane Ian, Hurricane Fiona, ect… Building on that first point, it is when a TC has a large impact to land. The second way a TC becomes notable is by some extreme rare event. Example is Tropical Storm Danny (2021), which had extremely minimal impacts, but was the first system to make landfall on the U.S. state of South Carolina in the month of June since Hurricane One in 1867. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, right now by Cyclone Tiffany caused fairly low-impacts to Australia. The article also does not indicate any sign of like a “rare event”. I will say though, you mentioned it washing away railroads, but that is not mentioned in the article. The merge, at least in my opinion, is not too harsh, since an article either is notable enough or isn’t notable enough. I think the main and only question is, does Cyclone Tiffany pass WP:NWEATHER? Elijahandskip (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip: We obviously need a new discussion since we have had a lot of AFDs and complaints about the criteria from other editors over the last few months it seems. It is also worth reminding you that Wikipedia:Notability (weather) is only an essay that is meant to cannot cover every single sciencero. Anyway I personally belive that Tiffany passes the weather criteria as it had a large impact on Australia, even though the death.damage totals are low because the 4 states it impacted Queensland, Northern Territory, Western & South Australia are not as populated as other parts of Australia. I mentioned that railroads were washed away which caused signficant delays to freight for several weeks per the BoM's TCR on Tiffany, which proves that it had lasting impact.Jason Rees (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:13, 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. If the page creator wants a copy of the article content or to work on it in User space, let me know. Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MRISC32[edit]

MRISC32 (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)

Great project, but it does not seem to pass any notability criteria. MarioGom (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason for creating the page was to have a stub that can be filled out by others over time, and have a reference to link to from other Wikipedia articles (there were already a few links/mentions before the article was created).
In writing the article I tried my best to present objective facts (i.e. follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), as well as follow the pillars Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.
Regarding notability: While the architecture has yet to see widespread use, some notable parts are:
  • The ISA is open and royalty free under a very liberal license (much more accessible/liberal than OpenRISC, OpenPOWER etc).
  • The architecture is a vector processor, of which there are few around today, especially open-source architectures.
  • It is well documented, proven, has a complete and modern GNU Compiler Collection toolchain and a simulator, unlike most hobby architecture projects.
I believe that the main value of the article is to explain and acknowledge the existence of the ISA, in a world where there are only about a handful of truly open and royalty free modern ISAs (and even less vector processor ISAs). Its purpose is not to promote the architecture (there are no financial benefits or similar connected to the project). Marcus256 (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marcus256: Please, see the general notability guideline. Notability is judged by the availability of reliable secondary sources about the topic, which do not seem to exist here. MarioGom (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am aware of the lack of secondary, independent sources. These are, however, often hard to come by for many open-source projects, as the primary source is community driven and where all the information is. E.g. see Simple DirectMedia Layer and LZ4 (compression algorithm) (two open-source projects off the top of my head): most sources are primary (either direct links to project GitHub pages or blog articles by the authors).
I would also argue that hardware open-source projects naturally have a much lower uptake/spread compared to software open-source projects, which tends to skew notability (coverage, sources) in proportion to other merits (technical, innovation, quality etc).
Anyway. Would a more stripped down stub make more sense in this case (until more secondary sources are available)? I'm fine with the article being deleted, but I think that it would be a shame (the information is objective and useful). Marcus256 (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this your project? Also, there is literally 0 coverage. For comparison something like OpenSSL has loads of coverage! Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's my project that has been in the making for about five years. That's why I wanted to keep it as a stub to avoid bias (but I got carried away and added some content too - it's OK if most of the content was dropped if that would make the article less biased). Hm, OpenSSL is a critical security component of every Android phone and Linux system (most web/cloud servers) etc in the world, so it's bound to have lots of coverage. While I'd love to see MRISC32 be as popular I won't hold my breath (it's not a popularity contest, I hope).
I realise that there's very low coverage from traditional news sources etc, which is of course a problem. For reference, here are some primary & community sources (just to give a better feeling of the scope of the project):
GitHub repos:
Blog articles:
Homepage:
Discussion forums:
Mentions:
Media:
Marcus256 (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I beg you Marcus256, read COI because this is one gigantic COI! Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear WngLdr34, don't get me wrong, I'm honestly trying to understand what's OK and not w.r.t. COI. I get that there's a potential COI here, but the thing is that this is an open-source project without any financial benefits (it's actually the opposite), there's no competition (by definition), and my person is not mentioned nor do I gain/lose personally from the presence of the Wikipedia article. The article on COI editing that you linked does not seem to cover this? The sole purpose is to improve Wikipedia by providing a missing article (from the POV of an SME if you will - I do have the education background and experience). I guess I'm trying to understand what the COI policy/definition is on things like open-source work.
As I've said before I'm fine with having the article deleted, but I'd like to learn something along the way too. Marcus256 (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, are you primarily objecting to the presence of the article, or the contents of the article, or both? Marcus256 (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The contents, its why I supported the AFD! Its a good article, just it doesn't pass any GNG, Github, twitter users and videos are not independent coverage. You are a giant COI and should have noted this. You are clearly not a new editor to Wikipedia, which is why I am so concerned. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 16:15, 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! 21:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My Racing Career[edit]

AfDs for this article:
My Racing Career (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)

Failed WP:GNG, not enough notability. Searches failed to find up any sources that showed notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 20:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really get which is the reason for this deletion nomination. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia but My Racing Career has ~100,000 users which isn't something a non-notable game would have... NicorzF104 (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're looking for sources like newspapers or magazines that talk about the game or have given a review. We don't have those. Oaktree b (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources found for this game, only download links or wikipedia mirrors. No critical reviews that I could see. Oaktree b (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable sources that I could find. WP:VGSE turned up nothing for both search engines, and no reliable critical reviews. Fails WP:GNG and does not meet the policy essay WP:NVIDEOGAMES. NicorzF194, although the game may have over 100,000 players, it needs significant commentary in multiple sources such as news outlets to be considered for an article. If you wish to create a new game article in the future, check the VGSE that I linked. It can sort out a variety of reliable sources, and if there are sources there that provide reviews/commentary about the game you searched up, you can try making an article based on those. ‡ The Night Watch ω (talk) 23:11, 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 Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speed skating at the 2023 Winter World University Games[edit]

Speed skating at the 2023 Winter World University Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Could be a redirect, but is being contested without improvement. Onel5969 TT me 15:03, 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! 17:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draft. I also agree with joseph, it is toosoon for an event that wont happen in a year, but when the speed skating does come, it will pass GNG.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 21:18, 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 merge to Sugar packet#Collecting. RL0919 (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sucrology[edit]

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

Very niche hobby, very niche coverage (minor news about Guinness book record, a UK club, etc.). Next to zero sources found in GScholar/Books query, what little there is seems to fail WP:SIGCOV. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm not sure why a deletion discussion was started here. This is a reasonable search term, so you could just redirect to a larger article if needed. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I found it interesting that this article dates back to December 2004. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MZMcBride Redirect where? I am open to suggestions, a redirect is a good WP:ATD. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is about all I could find [4], the same from the 2022 version of the book as well; they are nothing more than DICDEF. Likely too niche for RS to cover. Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually amazed there isn't *something* written about this. Oaktree b (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This from quite some time ago [5] and this [6], both tangential mentions of the hobby. And a brief feature on a TV program [7]. Weak, weak keep based on these, I'd feel bad if we couldn't keep some sort of an article about it, it appears somewhat popular. There's a club in the UK dedicated to this hobby. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge (or at best a very very weak keep) - actually found a "public interest story" in a local newspaper and a mention of this term on "ripley's believe it or not"; What very little mention exists is there to make light/fun of a the idea of collecting sugar packets. Does entertainment outlets making light/fun of something incredibly obscure an indicator of notable?Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Flibbertigibbets A very very weak one :) Would be good to think of a possible redirect and small merge. This is something that can be mentioned on Wikipedia, but without sources that are both reliable and do a WP:SIGCOV treatment of this, keeping this as a stand-alone is not very justified. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I located a reasonable redirect target for WP:ATD: Sugar_packet#Collecting (unreferenced short section on this, linking to the article discussed here). I suggest we added the best referenced we have there, maybe merge a sentnece or two if any seem useful, and redirect this there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion, this way the content is preserved as wellFlibbertigibbets (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a wonderful solution. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect A full article is unnecessary and excessive, but some coverage, as suggested above, is definitely warranted. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge some of the content into Sugar_packet#Collecting and redirect article title. Great to find this hobby publicised but sad it's via an AfD discussion. There's quite a few interviews with collectors in local UK newspapers. A man from Cumbria accumulated 34,000 packets apparently. Nothing in The Times though. I used "sugar packet collecting" as the search term in Wikilibrary. Love the quaint first version of the page in the history. Suppose that would be lost in a merge. Does this count? [8] Rupples (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are WP:PRIMARY so that argument is null and void. They can be used to verify a subject exists, but thats about it. They are not WP:SECONDARY scope_creepTalk 23:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does an article about miniature books relate to this topic? In either case, sugar packet collecting should be a redirect, I'll create it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian article mentions sugar packets were used to make miniature books, but this is not strictly related to collecting as a sucrologist. I can't in all honesty support my opinion by recourse to WP policy and guidelines but I'm OK with a merge of some of the content into the sugar packet article so will change my opinion to that. Thanks for the redirect you've just done. Will that redirect automatically follow through into the sugar packet article, if as seems likely, this article is deleted? Rupples (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples If it's deleted, it would require manual action, I think. But I hope this will be just redirected (or merged and redirected), as ith a section in the article on suger packets, we have a perfectly fine target for this article to be redirected. And if this happens, a bot will fix the double redirect. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect Found a Telegraph entry at [9] and a CNN article at [10]. They're is nothing else Gbooks, archive sites, cse or WP:BEFORE. Its very very small hobbyist group that is not significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Its a Dicdef. scope_creepTalk 23:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 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 redirect to Judge Dredd#Major storylines. Star Mississippi 16:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Pit (Judge Dredd story)[edit]

The Pit (Judge Dredd story) (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)

Plot summary, no evidence of meeting WP:GNG, no analysis, no reception, no reviews. A redirect to Judge_Dredd#Major_storylines should suffice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:46, 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. Star Mississippi 16:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casio digital horn[edit]

Casio digital horn (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)

Could only find passing mentions, mostly related to its use in In the Aeroplane Over the Sea (look also for "zanzithophone" for more of those results), and some which were just advertisements in Billboard and other music magazines. There is this piece from Hackaday but that's all I could find that seems actually useful here. QuietHere (talk) 16:51, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shiyaling station[edit]

Shiyaling station (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)

Have attempted tagging and redirecting this article, hoping that it would be improved. Currently, there is not a single in-depth source. Fails GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added additional sources that focus on this station. Now meets WP:GNG. Plus, it does not make sense to redirect an interchange station to a single line article - it makes sense for interchange stations to have their own articles to aid navigation, if nothing else. Garuda3 (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - additional sourcing consists of a source of dubious reliability and a press release. The first appears to be another press release as well.Onel5969 TT me 01:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the five sources currently cited in the article, a quick search found several others, which I think demonstrate notability: [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. I suspect a more thorough search would find even more. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient sourcing available to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 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 keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pingshan Center station[edit]

Pingshan Center station (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)

Have attempted tagging and redirecting this article, hoping that it would be improved. Currently, there is not a single in-depth source. Fails GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This will be an interchange station in the future so it doesn't make sense to redirect it to the line article. Interchange stations ought to have their own articles to aid navigation. Garuda3 (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This vote does not even attempt to give a policy-based reason for the retention of the article, and should be ignored by the closer. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy is WP:IAR. I have presented a valid reason why I feel this article should be kept. The station is also likely to receive more coverage as the connecting line is constructed. "The closer" doesn't need your instructions. Garuda3 (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll simply trust that the closer will ignore your nonsense vote, then. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added some references to the article, which now has six. But admittedly three of the sources I added only mention Pingshan Center Station in passing. Only one of the sources in the article goes into any detail about the station. Based on this, I think it's borderline at best, but because other stations on the line clearly pass GNG, there's something to be said for keeping all of them for the sake of consistency. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Line 14 (Shenzhen Metro). Fails GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added two more video sources from local news outlets that talk about the station in general & the destinations it serves respectively:
  • "【地•坪•现】沿着地铁看坪山③Vlog：坪山广场、坪山中心站_坪山新闻网" [Looking at Pingshan along the subway Vlog 3: Pingshan Square, Pingshan Center Station]. Pingshan News Network. 2022-08-29. Retrieved 2022-12-12.
  • "Vlog⑦｜14号线来了！走，带你逛逛坪山中心站的"六馆一城"-度小视" [Vlog 7｜Line 14 is here! Let's take you to the "six halls and one city" at Pingshan Center Station]. Shenzhen Special Zone Daily. Retrieved 2022-12-12 – via Baidu.
Jumpytoo Talk 22:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sourcing found and meets gng

NotOrrio (talk) 12:45, 15 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kengzi station[edit]

Kengzi station (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)

Have attempted tagging and redirecting this article, hoping that it would be improved. Currently, there is not a single in-depth source. Fails GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Its sourced and meets GNG now.
Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - when nominated, had zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Now has a single source from an independent source which goes in-depth about it, and not sure of that source's reliability, since it does not advertise its editing policy.Onel5969 TT me 01:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added two more sources. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - neither of which mentions the station.Onel5969 TT me 11:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true. The first source[19] says "2020年8月28日，坑梓站主体结构顺利封顶，是全线第四座封顶的车站，也是坪山区第二座封顶的车站。" and "坑梓站为地下二层岛式站台车站，位于深圳市坪山区坪山大道中段北侧，车站总长约275m，标准段宽约21m，总建筑面积17312㎡。车站共设4个出入口，1个疏散口，2组风亭。" The second source[20] says "在线路的18个站点中，有6个站点在坪山区域内，分别为沙湖站、坪山围站、坪山广场站、珠洋坑站（坪山中心站）、坑梓站、沙田站。“ and "坑梓站周边有坪山区妇幼保健院、光祖中学、平乐骨伤科医院、坑梓中心小学等配套。但周边的居住氛围并不成熟，仅亨龙楼、金田风华苑两个小区，二手房价在2.1-2.5万元/平方米区间。" The station's name in Chinese is "坑梓站", so even if you can't read Chinese you can see that it's mentioned four times in those quotes. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient sourcing available to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 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 the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 16:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Tewari[edit]

Naveen Tewari (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)

Sources are more suitable for company but not for his personal. non notable person. Lordofhunter (talk) 15:00, 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. ✗plicit 13:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Breedlove[edit]

Sally Breedlove (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)

Almost all sources are WP:SELFSOURCE. No reliable sources to justify inclusion in Wikipedia UtoD 12:51, 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 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! 04:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Institute of Architecture[edit]

San Francisco Institute of Architecture (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 school. The two sources in the article are useless for notability due to both being non-sequiturs and I'm not finding anything usable on a Google search (string: "San Francisco Institute of Architecture"); news results are all name-drops where someone is mentioned as having a degree from them and general is mostly the usual litany of profiles and user-generated content sites (i.e. LinkedIn and Glassdoor). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not an enough information about the school. 1736617483O (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In spite of allusions to a variety of bona fide architectural resources, I only found this institute as a signatory to the Talloires Declaration. There is no entry for National Center for Education Statistics, and in fact, the Institute apparently is in violation of California's Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education Department of Consumer Affairs. The Institute employs 7 people and offers degrees entirely online. The current article is without reliable, independent secondary source— there are notices in various local news sources of events/speakers sponsored by the institute, but no sources discuss it in any depth. Enough said. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:15, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed Kadaɗe Suleiman[edit]

Muhammed Kadaɗe Suleiman (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 BLP has coverage for being the national youth leaders of a political party and another for being among a list of 100 influential person's by MIPD (a non-notable award). Aside these, no in-depth independent reliable source can be found, thus, fails WP:GNG. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 06:52, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Chidiebere[edit]

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

The only available sources for this BLP are interviews, thus, failing WP:GNG. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 06:40, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Officer Woos[edit]

Officer Woos (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 meeting WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Hitro talk 06:10, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tubophon[edit]

Tubophon (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 tried to find sources for this, but came up completely short. An in-depth search only revealed misspellings of Tubaphon. It's a non-notable, novel instrument. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling is absolutely right „TUBOPHON” - a quick search revealed more pictures of the instrument and a live website. A renowned musician (Peter Sadlo) composed a musical piece for it. So it is a valid and existing (gigantic) percussion instrument with no connection to Tubaphon. Starfish 42 (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know it exists. I need sources. And whenever I find sources, it's not for this instrument. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing in GNews, all other sites seem to be wikipedia mirrors. Even the article is mostly based on the patent. Oaktree b (talk) 13:14, 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 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! 23:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flemish Quality Management Center[edit]

Flemish Quality Management Center (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:ORG. I found no coverage for its English name, and just 3 gnews hits for its Dutch name. LibStar (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Now known as Xelyo but I am not finding much more on it under that name. AllyD (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I also couldnt find anything that related to this topic. I searched in the wikipedia library, news and google. No results.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 21:16, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchblend[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pitchblend (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)

2011 N/C, but absolutely no evidence they met N:MUSIC then, and definitely don't 12 years after they broke up. As raised in that AFD, a redirect to Pitchblende or deletion and move Pitchblende (disambiguation) to this title would make sense, but didn't feel it should be done unilaterally given that it also survived a speedy. Star Mississippi 02:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United Kingdom, and England. Star Mississippi 02:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then Redirect to Pitchblende: I could not find the AllMusic review (which may have helped even prove the slimmest margin of notability), and search results elsewhere for coverage of either the band or their music turned up with nothing. I would personally delete it, as there is no need to maintain the page history, and then create a redirect. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Note that this band just barely survived a previous AfD with a "no consensus", and that was in 2011 when band notability rules were looser than they are now. Meanwhile, this article has something I don't think I've ever seen before: a link to AllMusic that is either dead or fake. There is no such album review at the AllMusic site now, and I cannot find the text that was supposedly quoted from reviewer Stewart Mason anywhere online. Otherwise, I was able to find two mentions at Drowned in Sound: [21], [22], but I don't think that adds up to the significant coverage that is necessary here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:00, 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 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! 02:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plamo[edit]

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

I am unable to find evidence that this is a notable hobby. I found this, which talks about them in the context of Gundam, but nothing about the technique. GHits are littered with plamo models of x thing (usually a retail site) and a physics term called plano, which appears entirely unrelated. Star Mississippi 02:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Star Mississippi 02:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suppose it's a thing, I find sales sites using the term, but I can't find anything that explains it or any news articles about it. French wiki article only uses the one bare ref this article has. Nothing for GNG that I can see.Oaktree b (talk) 03:31, 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 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! 02:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kasam Durga Ki (2019 film)[edit]

Kasam Durga Ki (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. All of the refs fail SIGCOV, e.g., ref 1 lists the cast, quotes Rani, and describes the actress's appearance in the poster, which are routine and falls under directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories. Likewise, ref 2 is a routine announcement column going over minor details on the cast and plot, ref 3 opens to the same article as ref 2, ref 4 is a one paragraph non-SIGCOV announcement, ref 5 is an announcement from a non-RS website that publishes on Wordpress per here, whereas the rest are databases on songs. My search found trivial mentions, 1, 2, but I didn't find SIGCOV-meeting sources. All current sources fall under ...announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined per GNG, NFILM criteria are also failed. VickKiang (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Bihar. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - source found here. @VickKiang: Are you saying that all of Alijala1975's articles need better sources? It is hard to find reviews for Bhojpuri films. Also, the user has created all articles relating to Rajendra Bharadwaj (the writer of this film in the infobox) and still looks fishy (like a COI). DareshMohan (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DareshMohan: IMO it is a routine announcement covering about a song, but doesn't really non-trivially analyse the film, but rather about Rani, e.g., Rani Chatterjee has not only won the hearts of the audience with her strong performance, but her transformation look has also surprised the audience. So I don't think it's WP:SIGCOV, but thanks for the find.
    Secondly, many of User:Alijala1975's articles are... probably non-notable IMO. Nevertheless, the film-related articles aren't blatantly promotional for a WP:COI, perhaps the editor is just a fan. But I noticed that the user created the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajendra Bharadwaj, it's now deleted and I'm going off-topic but do you recall whether that was promotional? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @VickKiang: Don't know about Rajendra Bharadwaj but from what it seems online, is that he is not famous enough to have fans (at least views-wise). From what I remember is that the article may not have been promotional (not sure though) but do remember though that it was filled with database sources. Also, the (2019 film) part of the title can be removed. The user has created all of the articles (almost) relating to the YouTube channel of Rajendra Bharadwaj (scroll down and find this film). When a new YouTube promo/trailer/song relating to a movie is released, the user creates an article for it, that is why there is suspicion.
Also remember that the source is in Bhojpuri and the translator you used probably was in Hindi (since it doesn't have Bhojpuri) so it might be inaccurate since you are translating using another language. - DareshMohan (talk) 07:29, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SKUvantage[edit]

SKUvantage (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:CORP. Has been marked for notability concerns and possible WP:PROMO. Created by a single purpose editor and hardly any articles link to this. LibStar (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. AllyD (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searches via WikiLibrary and NewsBank databases (wider and deeper than Google) reveal a handful of routine coverage but nothing significant; and would appear unlikely any would exist. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 01:02, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silian station[edit]

Silian station (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 train station. Author contested a previous attempt to redirect the article, so here we are. I found nothing in a basic BEFORE search. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't read the language the sources use, but if it just opened in October 2022, I would imagine it would be covered in the media, somewhere.Oaktree b (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a discussion about how to cover all the stations on the line (there is absolutely no reason to treat any station differently to the others that I can see) that has input from editors who can read Chinese. It's inconceivable that there will not be sources about the stations on a new metro line in a city of 17.5 million people. I can't say how detailed the sources are as they are principally in Chinese (as one would expect), so I don't know whether these are best covered on individual pages or merged, but in either case deletion is not warranted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be happy to have a conversation with the article's creator about how best to cover the stations, but they seem more interested in edit warring and yelling than working collaboratively [23] [24] [25]. We can't merge or redirect any of these because this user will just revert everyone. There's tons of these in the NPP queue right now, and all have poor sourcing and no self-respecting NPP reviewer would accept them. When a redirect is contested, the general procedure is to then proceed to AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, when a redirect is contested the correct procedure is to discuss it on the talk page (or a wikiproject, with pointers). AfD is, as the name clearly spells out, the place to nominate articles you want deleted. Perhaps foolishly I live in hope that you will learn this one day. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You know very well that a talk page discussion would attract no attention at all. Either you show me the rule that says train stations cannot be redirected or merged individually, or stop wasting my time (hint: there's no rule, you just made it up). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: talk page discussions: hence pointers from/to WikiProjects, etc.
    I have never argued that stations cannot be redirected or merged individually (that I made something like up is entirely in your head). I have however repeatedly argued that they almost never should, because it simply doesn't make sense to do that. Where you have a set of items that are part of a notable set (stations being just one example) and which have a broadly identical level of notability (whatever that level is) all items in the set should be discussed as a group and either all should have articles or they should be merged to an article about the set (or some other appropriate location). Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found several sources with a quick search: [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. Some of these cover the station in more detail than others, but together I think they demonstrate notability. I suspect a more thorough search would find more sources too. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in addition to points raised by other users, this is a future interchange station and so it does not make sense to redirect this to a line article, and there is likely to be more coverage in the future as the new lines serving this station are completed. Garuda3 (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient sourcing available to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sakya Academy[edit]

Sakya Academy (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 complying WP:NCORP requirements. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 00:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources used in the article are about a teacher's death and all I can find are listing of students needing rescuing, that just happen to attend this school. Very tangential mention of hte school and a long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 03:38, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_December_8&oldid=1127810140"