Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 11 November 13 >

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 redirect to Chicago Union Station. Part of the content has already been merged there, and if anyone wants to merge more, it will be available in the redirect's history. Deor (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Union Station ridership[edit]

Chicago Union Station ridership (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 just a list of passenger statistics for a single station, presented in more detail than is relevant for Wikipedia (see WP:NOTSTATS). The relevant details could occupy perhaps a paragraph in the parent article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Illinois. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of the nation's busiest rail terminal stations. More than a mere "single station". It's the primary rail transit hub of Metra and the Midwestern hub of Amtrak. SecretName101 (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged as collapsible content at the article Chicago Union Station. I'll let others decide whether they like it merged or spun-off. SecretName101 (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even collapsed, this would be hilariously WP:UNDUE at the Chicago Union Station article. As cited by the nominator, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would maybe incorporate the first portion into the Union Station article (with the red and green arrows and percentages); the rest seem less interesting. That or it should have more context given before presenting the statistics in each section. That would help keep this from being a page with mostly charts and numbers. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chicago Union Station. None of this is worth merging except maybe for the Amtrak ridership numbers at the very top. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:47, 14 November 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dalsze okolice[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dalsze okolice (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 cite sources and appears to fail WP:GNG, at least in English. Réunion (talk!) 23:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, and Poland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is one line. Even in the Polish article, there are large chunks of mostly unsourced text with 3 citations and a list of works. I don't think you'd have GNG even with what's given there. Oaktree b (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is notable, as can be easily seen from the pl wiki article (there is an entire section on reviews of this book, "Recenzje i omówienia", listing ~20 reliable sources, such as Polish literarly magazines) or a GSCholar query. I'll add a reference to our article so it doesn't look so terrible. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since the author Czesław Miłosz won the Nobel Prize for Literature, criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK is met. In addition, a Wikipedia Library search turns up 27 scholarly articles about this work.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on Polish language sources from the pl wiki article. Archrogue (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources support that WP:NBOOK is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:27, 20 November 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. Legoktm (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gamble Rogers[edit]

Gamble Rogers (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 be notable outside of the circumstances of his death and even that is slim at best. Received numerous awards but none of them appear to be notable either. His full discography has been put up for a separate AfD here and I don't see those getting saved either. QuietHere (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Florida. QuietHere (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has a reasonably long bio at AllMusic here which details numerous television credits such as composing themetunes and numerous appearances including his own PBS special that have a claim for criteria 10 of WP:NMUSIC. Other sources here, here,here, here and here which details a biography written on him by a journalist, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:39, 12 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! 22:10, 12 November 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! 04:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Gwangju[edit]

List of tallest buildings in Gwangju (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)

Missed the 2015 PROD - my bad.

Per extensive recent consensus on these types of lists. Minimal navigational purpose given that none of these buildings have articles and are unlikely to have sufficient coverage for articles, and the topic of tall buildings in Gwangju as a whole has no significant coverage that I could find. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:47, 5 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! 22:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article fails WP:NLIST. I couldn't find any sources that make note of the height of buildings in Gwangju, and I checked the ko.wikipedia article as well as the ro.wikipedia article. I searched in English as well as rough machine-translated Korean via terms like "광주광역시" "가장 높은 건물" ("Gwangju" "tall buildings") and "광주광역시" "고층 빌딩" ("Gwangju" "skyscrapers") and couldn't find anything, though because I don't speak Korean it's very possible there's sources I couldn't find, but I did make an effort to look and came up with nothing that would show notability for this subject. Just because a city has buildings that are tall according to Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat's definition does not automatically make a "List of tallest buildings in X" article notable, it still needs sources per WP:NLIST. - Aoidh (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:NLIST. I also tried translating search terms, couldn’t find anything notable. Agree with the above. Equine-man (talk) 07:29, 18 November 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. Sources found that nudge the consensus toward keeping the article. Joyous! | Talk 03:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parapolice[edit]

Parapolice (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 not a notable concept. The article appears to primarily promote the work of one academic, George S. Rigakos (it was created by an editor who mostly just adds Rigakos content to Wikipedia). There is nothing to indicate it has broader significance or is meaningful in common parlance or academia. Thenightaway (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there anything to indicate that this is commonly used and specific term which cannot simply be explained within the context of articles such as Paramilitary and Police? The concept is so redundant that I'm not sure it's even worthy of a mention in those articles, let alone have its standalone article. As far as I can tell, one academic coined the term (every day, countless someones somewheres coin new terms and try to make them a thing) and it has subsequently been occasionally used instead of the more common term "paramilitary". To what extent anyone uses the term, I suspect citogenesis plays a role in it, as this Wikipedia page (which was most likely created by the academic) makes it appear as if this concept is a thing. Thenightaway (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suppose that even if the term were widely used, it's Wiktionary material at best. I noticed that the page suddenly has a Basque version, but it is ultra-short, has no sources, and, judging from its text, is a short translation from the English. --Suitskvarts (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - I added a Further reading section with an academic source I found (convenience link ProQuest 504598950) which does provide some historical context around the term and its use over time. For example, "The word 'parapolice' was first deployed in legislation that attempted to define penalties for neighbourhood watch group members who falsely identified as police officers (University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1972) and was thus specifically portrayed as illicit. More recently, sociologists and criminologists such as Fleming et al. (2006), Fleury-Steiner and Wiles (2003), Forst (2000), McLeod (2002), Rigakos (1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2002), Singh (2005) and Skolnick and Fyfe (1993) and have made use of the expression in ways that do not treat it as an inherently illegal practice." While I think the subject is notable, I lean 'weak keep because the article likely needs to be rewritten with a broader view. Pinging participants for their consideration: @Thenightaway:, @Oaktree b:, @Suitskvarts:. S0091 (talk) 18:39, 8 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! 22:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:NOTDICT, this is more of a word and a defonition then a notable thing that deserves a article.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 06:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per S0091. Seems to pass WP:GNG, although needs re-writing to clarify the actual usage of the word. Certainly agree that little-used concepts can seem like dictionary definitions, but I think the sourcing suggests enough meat to support an article. Suriname0 (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    edit: added an additional ref to the article as well. There seems to be substantial (well-cited, multi-field) academic usage of this term. Suriname0 (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are lots of additional academic references if one includes the term para-police in the search; 1 and 2 and 3. We are here assessing the notability of the page subject and not making judgements based on the standard of the page today. It's undoubtedly a term that is used many times in the relevant scholarly literature. JMWt (talk) 21:10, 21 November 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 as there is not, at this time, a suitable redirect or merge target available in mainspace. If anyone is interested in a userspace copy and actually intends to use it for making a broader scoped article, let me know and that can be done. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Safe-Zone[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alexandria Safe-Zone (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 on a fictional location, part of The Walking Dead series (both comic book and TV series). In a previous discussion, six and a half years ago, the outcome was delete. I noticed it has been recreated and I redirected it, but @BOZ: undid it and suggested a merge. My argument remains the same: this fictional location doesn't meet stand-alone notability (WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTINHERITED) and I don't believe there's anything to merge. The bulk of the article is a repetition of in-universe events (WP:NOTPLOT). There's no actual development or reception. The references that are there are reviews of The Walking Dead episodes and not about the fictional place itself, so just passing mentions at best. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Oaktree b:, while I appreciate your delete vote, the references used currently aren't fan blogs. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no, what I could find was though. I didn't think there was much more would could add to help for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh now I understand. Yes, likewise, I couldn't find any SIGCOV either. Sorry for the confusion. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This doesn't meet stand-alone notability without WP:SIGCOV. It looks like this was previously deleted without any significant change to justify creating it again. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Daranios below, or Merge to List of Walking Dead locations (see Draft:Locations of The Walking Dead) as supported by multiple delete voters; the reviews do discuss the location so I believe there is something there worth merging. I don't believe that TV.com, The Daily Telegraph, TheWrap, Forbes, and The A.V. Club are "only fan blogs" somehow? I will spend some time in the coming week looking through other available sources, but it is a lot of work and will take me a few days to do. BOZ (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete. I can see a case for having a general article on something like Locations in The Walking Dead, but this has far too much poorly sourced content to even be a merge candidate for such a target. BD2412 T 05:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:BD2412, I got rid of most of the unsourced content if that helps you with a decision to merge the rest. BOZ (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:BD2412, how is it looking now? BOZ (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that would not be the worst outcome, but if that is the only location content in the main article, it becomes disproportionate. BD2412 T 21:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412: If you should still doubt notability of the topic after the recent improvements (which I don't), then maybe the best alternative to deletion would be to merge the current content into a newly created Locations of the Walking Dead after all, with empty sections for other relevant locations for the time being. That would look rather ugly, but as Wikipedia is built up step by step, that would hopefully be remedied in the future. The notability of such a target article should be relatively clear, with a two-page chapter in the book I've found, and the whole books of Locations-Locations of TWD and The World of The Walking Dead about it. (Hmm, I wonder how much on Alexandria specifically is in those...) Daranios (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I would support that. BD2412 T 16:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "Development and reception" is sourced (and not to blogs!), and is large enough to fullfill WP:WHYN. So no reason to delete. And while the commentary does still not quite balance the plot summary even after the recent trimming, there are more secondary sources with some analysis of this fictional location, like the "Zombies Rise to Power: Survivors Flee Toward the Past" chapter of Race and Gender in Electronic Media: Content, Context, Culture and others. If all of that should still not be seen as enough, I would obviously prefer a merge to deletion. Daranios (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Daranios:, thank you for your input. I did do a quick WP:BEFORE check, and like the source you posted, I believe they're still just passing mentions. That the Alexandria Safe-Zone is used as a metaphor (place of pristine condition in a rapidly decaying world) is to me personally as a fan of TWD interesting, but I don't believe it's enough to merit its own article. @BOZ: was kind of enough to remove the most of the WP:NOTPLOT stuff, including which characters are part of the location and what happened there, but I think we need more third-party independent, reliable coverage on creation, development, inspiration, reception. Passing mentions in scholarly research doesn't help with establishing standalone notability. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Soetermans, if a secondary source has analysis of the symbolic meaning of a topic, even if like in our example it is not overly long, that is not a passing mention in my book. And for significant coverage the topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". We now have more content referenced to secondary sources than plot summary based on primary sources. (Sure, the reception section by necessity contains bits of plot summary, too, to make the commentary understandable, but on the other hand the secondary sources suggested by Google scholar and Google books have not yet been exhausted.) So the article fullfills the requirements of both WP:WHYN and WP:NOTPLOT. Daranios (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just a reminder, an article can't be merged unless the target article exists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jontesta, as I said, an article can't be merged or redirected to a nonexistent article. Do you have a different redirect target? Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I have now created a corresponding stub for what I think is a notable parent topic of our article here. Daranios (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Daranios:, that link redirects to a draft. I think a better option right now is to draftify it so you and others can work on it. What do you think? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Soetermans: Yeah, the stub I had created has in the meantime been deemed not ready for mainspace, and is now at Draft:Locations of The Walking Dead. I still think our topic here merits a stand-alone article. But if there is no consensus for that, draftifying what we have so that it can be used to create a suitable Locations of The Walking Dead article seems the next best option to me. I think all merge opinions should be viewed in that regard, too, as the Locations parent article does again not exist yet, as Liz hat pointed out. Daranios (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable in-universe content. Would be OK with merging to an article about locations in the Walking Dead, but that doesn't seem to exist. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 22 November 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. Legoktm (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shahnaz Sumi[edit]

Shahnaz Sumi (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 actress.fails WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cause she is very famous actress in Bangladesh films industry. Although the creator didn't even update category yet. Thank all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MD Hydrogen 123 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs a bit more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 12 November 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 or more precisely there is a consensus not to delete the article, but no consensus on what else to do with it. The debate on merger can be taken forward via the article talk page, if there is any appetite to do so. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of saints named Peter[edit]

List of saints named Peter (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)

Redundant to List of saints, List of early Christian saints, and List of Catholic saints. I don't think we need yet another list just for saints named Peter. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This just seems like an unnecessary fork Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to St. Peter (disambiguation). Being names Peter is not a distinguishing characteristic, but it does produce ambiguity. Reywas92Talk 23:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article was split from the dab page in 2016, following this discussion. I don't quite understand the reason given – pinging Klbrain, BD2412, who perhaps can explain. This looks like an unnecessary proliferation of pages to me, so I'm leaning merge back to St. Peter (disambiguation) unless there's a compelling reason not to. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or if one must, merge). The page List of saints named Peter is a set index article, which was split from St. Peter (disambiguation) to help solve the chronic difficulty of disambiguating a saint's name, particularly when church/cathedral pages link the saint they are dedicated to. It forms part of a series of similarly-structured articles, like List of saints named Teresa (distinct from Saint Teresa), List of saints named Catherine (distinct from St. Catherine) etc. So, my view was and is that this structure works as long as the SIAs are clearly linked from the broader DAB. Klbrain (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to St. Peter (disambiguation). I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be there. Dream Focus 14:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate. Typically, a list of names will be separate from a disambiguation page (e.g. Mark and Mark (given name)). I doubt that there evidence that all of the names on List of saints named Peter are people who are primarily known as "Saint Peter", since the inclusion criteria for this list would appear to be saints for whom "Peter" is a component of their name. If this were to be merged anywhere, it would be to List of people named Peter, but that list is already lengthy despite being incomplete. BD2412 T 21:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- We do not normally have dabpages by forename, but this needs to be an exception. There should be an "otherpersons" link for the main page on St Peter, which should be to this article. St. Peter (disambiguation) is about places and buildings and already quite long; but it has a link to this page, which is appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back in to St. Peter (disambiguation) or else convert to disambiguation page. I wasn't bothered about this being a set index until I read the discussion that created it. Apparently people were having trouble resolving incoming links to the disambiguation page so they moved these entries out of it so they did not show up in dab error reports. This does not solve the problem, it just moves it out of sight so its guaranteed never to get fixed. I don't agree with Peterkingiron and others who argue that given names lists are not normally dabs. The reason that Mark (given name) is not a dab is because people are rarely if ever referred to just as "Mark" out of context so there is unlikely to be ambiguous incoming links. "St. Peter" on the other hand is more along the lines of regnal names like Nicholas I which is a dab page. SpinningSpark 22:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to St. Peter (disambiguation) per the other people's comments סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 11:06, 10 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! 22:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment coming at this from another angle. A set index article should still follow the same notability guidelines as other lists, so according to WP:NLIST one way to establish notability is if the list has been discussed as a group in independent reliable sources. I've tried to do a search but only found this article. If someone can find more sources that treat them as a group, that could establish notability, but otherwise I lean merge based on the reasons others have mentioned above. OliveYouBean (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not the case that lists are required to be a notable topic as a list. That is implied by NLIST at WP:CSC and explicitly stated for set index articles at WP:SIA – The list topic need not be notable in itself. Being beneficial to navigation is also an acceptable reason for existing. But I agree, merge is the best solution here. SpinningSpark 11:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to fit the criteria for set index articles. That is, it's about saints called Peter, not anyone or anything called St. Peter. Information would be lost/harder to find and/or the suggested merged-to pages would become cluttered if there were a merge. Disambiguation pages aren't helpful if they are overwhelmed. I don't see what benefit it brings to the user of the encyclopedia to get rid of this page, even through merging.OsFish (talk) 08:59, 22 November 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 06:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Jaywalk[edit]

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

Article about a band that does not seem to be notable. Can't find any sources about them that prove notability. - Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources for 15 years is too much. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 11:06, 10 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! 22:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination. My own search has not born fruit. —Sirdog (talk) 06:17, 14 November 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 List of programs broadcast by CTV Comedy Channel. Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Will Be Girls (TV series)[edit]

Girls Will Be Girls (TV series) (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)

Can't find any sources for this TV series that prove the article's notability. - Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:41, 5 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! 22:00, 12 November 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 04:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loh Wei Sheng[edit]

Loh Wei Sheng (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 fails WP:NBAD and WP:GNG. No notable achievement at the senior level, which is required. All the achievements are in junior level wgich are insufficient for an article under badminton criterias. zoglophie 16:19, 5 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! 21:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The only somewhat good source I can find is [1], and per the nom they do not meet WP:NBAD. —Sirdog (talk) 02:23, 13 November 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 15:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ye Yint Tun[edit]

Ye Yint Tun (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)

Badly sourced BLP on a footballer that does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I can't find any decent coverage in Burmese script of this footballer. My searches otherwise are only bringing up news stories about a journalist with the same name that got sentenced to prison this year. Nothing about the footballer. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:13, 12 November 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 15:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Naing Aung[edit]

Yan Naing Aung (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)

Can't find evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC when searching in Burmese script or otherwise. Ludu Nway Oo is the only source that I can find that is more than a database profile page but it lacks the necessary depth to justify an article. Being arrested and then released the following day is not a notable enough event unless it gained worldwide coverage and I can't see any indication that it did. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete I didn't see any evidence of notability. Zafafadubu (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; can't find anything other than database entries (and the note about his arrest Spiderone mentions in the nomination). Jogurney (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't find anything worth notability. JojoMN1987 (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly no evidence of notability. KimOvik (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Devokewater 14:23, 19 November 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 List of Cambridgeshire County Cricket Club List A players. Star Mississippi 15:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Green (English cricketer)[edit]

Cameron Green (English cricketer) (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)

Former cricketer fails WP:NSPORT. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:06, 12 November 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 15:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkling Society[edit]

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

Only 3 sources; one is a press release from the company itself, one is a partnership announcement, and one is a list of games. Not notable סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 18:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Agree with IP. ArchiveAnimal (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't locate any reference to support the notability of the company as per NCORP. HighKing++ 15:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. In addition to being an unmanageable nomination, none of the articles other than A Good Man (1941 film) were tagged for deletion. I noticed that José María y María José: Una pareja de hoy was nominated for deletion with WP:PROD. In addition to the one "keep" !vote here, these are unlikely to go without controversy if they are deleted citing WP:CSD#G7. I suggest going the standard route of using PROD where it can be applied and individual WP:AFD nominations where PROD has failed before. ✗plicit 09:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Good Man (1941 film)[edit]

A Good Man (1941 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)

This and the following unsourced empty placeholder sub stubs were created by me in 2009 to remove redirects and were never expanded. It is making the cleanup job much more difficult and would make the task easier if they were deleted, I cleanup the other content and then create the missing articles by director with proper content using the director templates. The stubs aren't being expanded by anybody and wouldn't be much of a loss if we delete them until they are recreated properly when the time is right. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Argentina. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's a bit many for one deletion request. Mixed opinion, suppose we can blank them and recreate later if needed. Oaktree b (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of these films have no citations supporting notability and were created by one editor back in the day. That editor is now requesting deletion and I concur. Wikipedia is not an IMdB mirror, and just existing as a film does not guarantee inclusion here. If at some point another editor wishes to re-create one or more of these films on Wikipedia there would be no prejudice against that, as long as notability is established at that time. But as they stand now they have been perma-stubs for over a dozen years and they are not encyclopedic at this point. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Did you do a WP:Before? Doing it for this many articles could take weeks. Anyhow, taking a look at the Spanish version of the articles (Vivir es formidable), it looks like notable critics reviewed the film, so the films must be notable. Leaning towards keep. This is not just for one of the articles -- see this. DareshMohan (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you not read why I want them deleted. Many of them can be expanded but the task is so big it's putting me off wanting to work on any article to do with this subject. It's a mess. So long term we lose out having these stubs because they deter me from wanting to bother with this. They will be recreated when the time is right, and I would keep a list of what would be deleted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, G7 - As the nom. has indicated, they created these as stubs themself. WP:BEFORE is irrelevant in this case as these all meet speedy deletion criterion WP:G7. Author requests deletion. They are stubs. No one else has added anything in 13 years. If anyone wanted to expand them, recreation is trivial and nothing is lost by the deletion. Credit must be given to the creator for both intending to expand the project but also seeking to clean up where expansion has not yielded benefits. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:11, 15 November 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 Guildford Flames. Viable ATD Star Mississippi 15:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Guildford Flames season[edit]

2018–19 Guildford Flames season (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)

Don't believe a team-specific season article for a British ice hockey team would pass WP:GNG, especially as it's largely unsourced, and hasn't been updated in 3+ years. That the EIHL season in question still doesn't have an article further suggests that a specific team isn't notable enough, either. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:53, 12 November 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. Legoktm (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Moradiya[edit]

Yash Moradiya (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)

Subject does not pass any notability guideline. AmirŞah 17:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)(sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, India, and Gujarat. AmirŞah 17:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think we consider Guinness World Records notable, so we fall back to GNG. I have found this on UPI [2] and a few other mentions. I think if we had one more RS in a newspaper for example, with the Guinness site we'd be at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourcing in the article (Hindi, English, Thai, Vietnames, Hungarian), as well as additional sources I find through Google-based searches indicate that subject passes WP:GNG. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Yandeńo (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)(sock strike- MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep: Sources of the article are from multiple language and from multiple countries which makes him to pass WP:GNG. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The coverage of this individual is more than sufficient for GNG. The fact he actively sought out this attention and thus is high-profile, and the fact the coverage is so extensive in multiple reliable sources, disqualifies WP:BLP1E from being a barrier to inclusion. —Sirdog (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG, because of receiving multiple WP:SIGCOV.KimOvik (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to WP:BIO1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:14, 20 November 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 15:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Lesbian[edit]

Teenage Lesbian (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)

From my original PROD: "Non-notable pornographic film. Just another adult film." There is nothing I could find that can verify that this film is notable in its own right as being exceptional as opposed to the minimal amount of articles of actual notable pornographic films. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete AVN awards are no longer notable on here (I think), so the film has no other coverage. WAY TOO MANY hits when you google this particular word combo; even when adding "film" you still get more than enough to sort through. I don't see any non-adult mentions of the film. Oaktree b (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my above comment, no real reason to think whatever the “QPIFF Recognition for Cinematic Excellence award” is helps pass notability standards Dronebogus (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing or finding secondary source coverage supporting any claim of general or WP:NFILM notability. Thehollywoodtimes.today article is an obvious press release on a site that invites user-submitted stories. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I join those who doubt that the QPIFF award contributes any notability, and the only sources I could find mentioning it are press releases, including the Hollywood Times source linked above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:22, 14 November 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. The (lack of) notability argument is well-reasoned due to the lack of independent coverage and review, and remains unrefuted in the debate. Regarding the dissenting keep vote, note that a determination of a book being non-notable is a separate matter from whether the book is good or reliable as a source. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hamsterlopedia[edit]

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

Does not seem to pass WP:GNG, given nature of sources cited — The Anome (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As creator - if there is one consumer-level hamster care book to be indexed in Wikipedia then this one should be it. Practically none of these books get reviews, and such as they are, this one has several over a period of years. Some of the reviews, while self-published, are from people who have recognition as authorities on hamster care and who are not fringe. Another rationale for keeping this article is that I cited this book as a source for the article hamster show. The authors of this book are breeders and have written the most and best commentary on grading hamsters for show and pedigree. Wikipedia sometimes gives special concession to allow Wikipedia articles about WP:reliable sources which may fall short of WP:notability criteria, and I think for underserved topics like this one, it is for the best. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think we need to start creating exceptions for every "special" book. We have notability standards to keep this place manageable. No reviews are no reviews. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The citations are not conventional but dismissing this as no reviews is too much.
  • The Hamster Mag - weird magazine but it is a published magazine about hamsters by a commercial publisher. This meets WP:N even though any expert would also say it is the worst of these sources, because it is by and for typical people with pet hamsters rather than serious hamster people.
  • ErinsAnimals - This is a top YouTuber with 321,000 subscribers. That should pass WP:SELFPUBLISH criteria as an expert in a relevant field. They review this book for 7 minutes, 10 years after the book is published. This is a thorough expert review.
  • Grantabrugge Hamstery - Well known breeder registered with the Hamster Council https://hamsters-uk.org/ giving book reviews of what breeders should know
  • Dashing Hamsters - This is an amateur blog and would be rated worst of the sources by Wikipedia standards. Still, the author is serious about hamsters, the blog is a thorough effort at correct documentation, and the book review presents a good survey of popular hamster books.
I know other stuff exists WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and what passes elsewhere is not supposed to be used to justify breaking rules elsewhere, but I do not think it is fair that Wikipedia accepts Kirkus but not self-published experts. Kirkus is the WP:RS for thousands of Wikipedia book reviews and their model is that any publisher that pays $1000 gets a book review. If I were rich I would give them $1000 and then this hamster book would meet WP:N. Kirkus would not get a hamster expert to write the review, but just churn through a paid reviewer. There are 4 reviews here from people who know their hamsters. I admit that all this fails conventional WP:RS but hamsters are underfunded and I think WP:IAR should be used for hamsters. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Hamster Mag and the Hamster Council seem semi-RS. I'm still wary about the self-published blogs and other sources. Oaktree b (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Book was supposedly published in 2002 but is no longer even listed on the publisher's page (Ringpress Books). It is listed in zero libraries in worldcat, and although the publisher is in the UK and UK has a deposit requirement for books, it isn't in either the British Library catalog nor the official British National Bibliography. I can't even prove that it ever existed except for the one mention on the authors' web site and a review in a rather niche magazine which appears to no longer exist. (Issuu site gives no content, and magazine's site gives an error. Lamona (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona: The book exists. I just added links to worldcat and British Library listings in Wikidata Hamsterlopaedia: A Complete Guide to Hamster Care (Q107339829) because you mentioned them. The YouTube video review shows a physical copy of the book in the reviewer's hands. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Under this spelling ("Hamsterlopaedia") it does show up in the British National Library, and in WorldCat in all of 82 libraries. That still does not rise to notability, however. Lamona (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:GNG; additionally, the article lacks acceptable sourcing. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as clearly failing WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. A YouTuber is not a subject-matter-expert because of subscriber count, which is an example of WP:POPULARITY. Grantabrugge Hamstery is also clearly a blog with no editorial policies whatsoever, merely a register with Hamster Council, which is standard for breeders, does not denote that it is a WP:RS or SME SPS. The same is of Dashing Hamster- it is a blog with no indication of reliability, just because the author is serious and enthusiastic does not make the site an expert SPS. Reading through Hamster Magazine, the submissions page seem to be quite lenient, allowing volunteers to write without detailing any submission or fact-checking process, I also could not locate editorial policies or the authors being subject matter experts, its website link is defunct, and there is no WP:USEBYOTHERS, it is just a self-published magazine. Therefore, none of the sources meet the reliability requirement, and this clearly fails GNG/NBOOK. Besides, at WP:RSP we don't actually consider Kirkus Indie, which allows paid reviews, are RS (in fact it states Kirkus Indie is a pay for review program for independent authors, its content is considered to be questionable and to not count towards notability, in part because the author can choose whether or not the review is published), so this is a bad WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comparison. VickKiang (talk) 21:46, 20 November 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 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! 21:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Íñiguez[edit]

Guillermo Íñiguez (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)

Most sources are not about the subject. One is a passing mention, and the other is only some brief quotes from an interview as an expert, rather than coverage about the subject. It does not seem to pass WP:GNG. MarioGom (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Spain. MarioGom (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom; cannot find any GNG sourcing regarding the subject that is not a trivial mention or an interview in an expert capacity. —Sirdog (talk) 03:21, 13 November 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. Legoktm (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Naajih[edit]

Ali Naajih (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 yet meet WP:SPORTBASIC. In a WP:BEFORE search I can find only passing mentions of him in two match reports for 2021: one for an international friendly [8], and one for a U23 Asia Cup qualifier [9]. Declined in draft a few hours before it was posted here unsourced. His name isn't given in Divehi, so I tried searching for the Google translation ޢަލީ ނާޖިޙް, though I'm not sure that's the correct spelling of his name. Storchy (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Storchy as these search result says
[10]
[11]
[12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxi1963 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The tier of play is irrelevant. WP:SPORTBASIC is based on the footballer needing to have significant coverage from reliable sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.soccerstand.com/player/naajih-ali/2JXyB4mS/
as this link says he has been on the bench since 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification and played friendly International 3 games for Maldives national football team Maxi1963 (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • note:
https://www.soccerstand.com/match/QwjHGwbA/#/match-summary/lineups
https://www.soccerstand.com/match/xn5mvgVH/#/match-summary/lineups
https://www.soccerstand.com/match/IqkntF05/#/match-summary/lineups
Maxi1963 (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Maxi1963, thanks for these links but we're not looking for proof that he played in matches, we're looking for articles written about him in reliable, WP:Secondary sources, to show his WP:Notability. Do you read Divehi? If you can find articles about him in Maldivian newspapers, that could help. Storchy (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many articles about him,
https://mihaaru.com/sports/51919
https://mihaaru.com/sports/98062
https://adhadhu.com/article/10958
https://adhadhu.com/article/18094
https://adhadhu.com/article/17906
https://adhadhu.com/article/11826
https://adhadhu.com/article/12401
https://adhadhu.com/article/18049
here is some of them,
Maxi1963 (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://adhadhu.com/article/18094 and https://adhadhu.com/article/10817 above are good ones , thanks, articles mainly about Ali Naajih in a national newspaper, and should be added to the article. The rest are about his team, and mention him only in passing. Storchy (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 19:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Young international capped player with ongoing career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:34, 18 November 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 15:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Lithuanian International[edit]

2018 Lithuanian International (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)

We do not normally make year wise articles for lower grade tournaments such as this one, which has little to no significance in the Badminton season. This is same like Slovenian International, Israel International, Norwegian International etc. This article clearly fail General Notability Standards, hence I request for it's deletion. Thankyou. zoglophie 13:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:13, 12 November 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. Legoktm (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SUD Life Insurance[edit]

SUD Life Insurance (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 the notability requirements; WP:NCORP. The very first source came from Lulu, well-known for vanity publishing, also known as self-publishing. A particular source from the ICRA makes this point quite obvious, "ICRA however has not conducted any audit of the rated issuer or of the information provided by it. While reasonable care has been taken to ensure that the information herein is true, such information is provided 'as is' without any warranty of any kind, and ICRA in particular, makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, timeliness or completeness of any such information." (Citation 8, Page 8). The rated issuer in the source is SUD Life Insurance. The remainder of all other sources are either simple remarks or news about selling & buying, the premium rate jumps, etc. RPSkokie (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Links Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Written by Staff Writer Pass/Fail Notes
Ebook: Insurance Made Easy Link Red XN Red XN Question? Red XN Not Applicable FAIL No ISBN, Self-published ebook by SV Tuition, Hosted on Google Books through its Partner Center.
Advertorial:How Star Union Dai-ichi Life Insurance (SUD Life) enhanced employee experience with Darwinbox Link Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Green tickY FAIL Not a reputable source. Probably an advertorial for Darwinbox company
Investment policy document: BSE India - placement memorandum about SUD Life Insurance Link Red XN Red XN Question? Red XN Red XN FAIL a placement memorandum is a document issued by a company which is further given to potential investors that introduces an investment and discloses information about it.
  • Delete sources analysis table says everything. Yandeńo (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to source analysis above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 16:04, 20 November 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Tower[edit]

Louisiana Tower (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)

Although it may be the second-tallest building in the city, no significant coverage of it was located on a search. I found some mentions in books, but nothing that goes into it in any substance aside from "it exists". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had originally closed it as delete, but per @Garuda3:'s request with potential sourcing on my Talk, willing to give it more time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Garuda3 (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A 21 story office tower is nothing special, beyond the routine announcements above, no sourcing found. Oaktree b (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Something doesn't have to be "special" for inclusion in Wikipedia. WP:ROUTINE refers to events, I don't believe it applies to buildings. Garuda3 (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no sources to explain why it isn't special either. No sources is no sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused, your comment wasn't about a lack of sourcing. There are clearly seven sources shared here so No sources is no sources. simply isn't the case. Garuda3 (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment is that this isn't a tower on the National Register of Historic Places, it's a rather plain office tower; it has no outstanding architectural features or no ground-breaking construction techniques. The sources just talk about it being sold or rented out. There is nothing to differentiate this from any one of the hundreds of other office towers all over the country. No substantial sources beyond routine coverage. No sources is still no sources. Oaktree b (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete still no significant coverage in reliable sources shared; all above are short announcements in a local paper. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that these sources are all routine, short announcements ina local paper. All of them lack any regional, and state-wise significance. my delete vote remains unchanged. Paul H. (talk) 19:45, 19 November 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 List of chess variants#Sovereign Chess. Star Mississippi 15:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign Chess[edit]

Sovereign Chess (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 seems like a very interesting game and I might buy it. Sadly, I'm not convinced it's notable. Notability tags were removed in the past on the basis of a local news write-up and an industry news article on a show it was played in, which doesn't mention the game by name or in any detail. The first is an RS, although as a local source I'd only accord it a moderate amount of weight; but more importantly, it's the only RS I can find. The Chess Variant Pages and BoardGameGeek are both user-generated, and regardless only discuss the game in terms of how it's played, not any real-world impact. I propose a redirect to List of chess variants § Sovereign Chess (to which I've already added the one RS). The current content, which is well-written if very in-game-oriented, can remain in the history for if more reliable sources emerge. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:54, 12 November 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.

Procedural keep. This only got to this point because of vandalism. This should not have been nominated for deletion but raised at WP:RFD, which still can be done if someone wishes to. Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Dog[edit]

Fat Dog (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 a spoof invented as a result of the Community episode it originates from, in which it specifies that you look up the phrase 'Fat Dog' on Wikipedia. I don't think a redirect is appropriate, as I don't think the link is either clear or necessary. Furthermore, the various completely different historical versions of this page are all about the same thing. Xx78900 (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely empty and useless סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 12:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It originally pointed to Fat Dog Mendoza, which is a legit target. I reverted it back to that. I suggest an admin protect this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:15, 12 November 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 15:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hausa–Fulani Arabs[edit]

Hausa–Fulani Arabs (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)

Hoax article created by a sock farm, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zaibala. The article, like Banu Gha and the other hoaxes, uses a lot of false references in an attempt to masquerade as a notable topic.

The following sources would indicate notability if they were real:

  • Ibrahim, Muhammad (1987). The Hausa-Fulani Arabs: A Case Study of the Genealogy of Usman Danfodio. Kadawa Press.
  • Bashir, Ali (2000). Kano Malams in the Ninteenth Century. River Front Press.
  • Sani, Muhammadu (1990). Arab Settlers in Kano. Sauda Voyager.
  • Abdullahi, Ahmed (1999). Madinawan Kano. Danlami Printers.

Not only are the books completely fictitious, the authors and publishing houses are too. The books that do exist make no mention of the "Hausa-Fulani Arabs" but instead talk about African history. For example, this journal is used to support the article but clearly makes no mention of this made-up ethnic group. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:30, 12 November 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.
  • Per the above discussion I have removed the sections on ancestry from the affected articles. SFB 03:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Shooting at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's trap. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Parker (sport shooter)[edit]

Frank Parker (sport shooter) (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:NOLYMPICS, I redirected it but was reverted. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:29, 12 November 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 Equator. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Equatorial[edit]

Equatorial (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)

Everything here is likely a WP:PTM except for Equatorial climate and Equatorial region, which are already covered in Equator in addition to the articles where they redirect. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Equator. Dronebogus (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim the article until it only includes the most important topics, such as Equatorial climate and Equatorial plane. 2601:647:5800:4D2:64A4:7B08:985:3C48 (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Equator per Dronebogus. Once all the WP:PTMs are removed, the clear primary topic of the term becomes apparent. BD2412 T 20:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with trimming. I don't see a primary topic for this adjective between the meanings related to the Earth's Equator, the celestial Equator, the chemical bond orientation, and the equatorial region (i.e. the tropics). The last meaning itself has a dab entry that gets six times more clicks than the entry for the Earth's Equator [16]. – Uanfala (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete There's actually nothing here which isn't a PTM. Redirecting to equator just interferes with searching, particularly since a number of the entries are things that are only distantly related to the actual equator. Mangoe (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As is common in dab pages for adjectives, all of the entries do indeed look like WP:PTMs, because the linked articles will typically have titles of the format adjective + noun. Some of the ones here (like Equatorial Guinea) undoubtedly are PTMs. But not all of them are. When the term "equatorial" is used to characterise a climate ("The climate of Papua is equatorial") or to describe an orbital plane ("A geostationary orbit is equatorial"), then what you have is not partial title matches, but different encyclopedically relevant uses of an ambiguous term. – Uanfala (talk) 17:33, 13 November 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 Belgium at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Shooting. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Ista[edit]

Ernest Ista (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:NOLYMPICS Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They also don't have an article on French or Dutch or another Belgian language, for which I suggest to delete it per WP:TNT to encourage the creation of a new article in the case another notable Ernest Ista arises. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Belgium at the 1908 Summer Olympics. It doesn't matter what there is in other Wikis (although in fact there is an equivalent article in the Polish wiki). As far as I can see there IS no other notable Ernest Ista but even if there were, we would want an actual article. I don't see any present argument for a TNT. Ingratis (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As you like. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails all criteria for a standalone article due to lack significant coverage and no known achievements. There was a late 19th century artist of the same name who may be more notable (evident from a simple google search); this is enough to oppose redirecting. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - not so: this is back to front. First produce an article on the other Ernest Ista - from the very low valuations of his works on the art sites he seems very unlikely to be a notable artist, which is why I discounted him - and then we'll see. You haven't given any other reason not to redirect - {{R to list entry}} meets the case exactly. Ingratis (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Utter nonsense. As far as we can tell, the two individuals are equally non-notable (and discountable) due to lack of available significant coverage and lack of any known noteworthy achievement or award. Retaining a redirect to an article that contains virtually no information about one of them is not helpful - WP season will find all article mentions perfectly adequately. WP:R#DELETE applies. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the civility. Same point-missing comments as always. There's a real difference between an article already in existence that can be redirected to a list entry (what on earth do you think the template is for otherwise?) and a non-existent article on a real nobody, but you don't seem to grasp that and I won't waste more time on a brick wall. If you can point to WP:R#DELETE for a redirect that doesn't exist yet, I can point to WP:R#KEEP. Ingratis (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Except this isn't an article in any real sense. It's a database entry mirror, so there is nothing to retain. There also isn't a target article that contains any meaningful context about the subject. To illustrate the absurdity of the argument, using your rationale, we could equally as justifiably add the artist to a list article and redirect there. wjematherplease leave a message... 23:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication that this person did anything notable. Nigej (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Belgium at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Shooting where a note can be added. This is perWP:ATD which is policy. Such a move will ensure that the attribution and sourcing in the original article are retained and allow it to be expanded as and when other sources become available - we're not on a deadline here remember and it's entirely possible that those sources may emerge. If we need to disambiguate along the way then that's just fine. Certainly a modern athlete competing in the Olympic games these days would, no doubt, create significant coverage and be noted in a number of places in some detail, so I'm not sure that it's reasonable to assume that he did "nothing notable". Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per my comments above, this is nothing more than a mirror of a database entry so there is nothing to retain. Also, NOLY was reduced to medal winners only, precisely because even modern era competitors do not generate significant coverage unless they achieve something. wjematherplease leave a message... 23:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • There IS now content which is not in the databases: he was also Belgian national shooting champion in 1907. Ingratis (talk) 21:13, 18 November 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) 16:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khoobsurat (TV series)[edit]

Khoobsurat (TV series) (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. Ref 1 is a promotional routine piece from a questionable website with only a vague about us page but no editorial policies (non-RS, non-SIGCOV). Ref 2 is another piece from a non-reliable site, its about us page is amateurish, advertising We eat, sleep and breathe entertainment, delivering exclusive breaking news and in-depth coverage on our celebrities, events and movie premieres, TV scoops and spoilers, fashion trends and tips, and what's viral now but no editorial policies. Ref 3 is a routine announcement (non-SIGCOV), ref describes itself as a blog (non-RS). Ref 4 is from the same website as ref 2 (non-reliable), whereas ref 5 is another short minor announcement totalling four sentences, mainly routine info on the trailer and cast. A WP:BEFORE search found frequent mentions on Khoobsurat (2014 film) of the same name, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, an older 1999 film, but I did not find anything about this TV series except for this trivial mention in an unreliable source. VickKiang (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as despite having signifant coverage, reliable and independent sources, article is Nominated for deletion. I don't understand what else do we have to expect from a reference related to a TV series. The reference added are from well known critics website in the country. Nominator of Deletion is not aware about it, if not sure look out from other sources of Tv series, you'll get the better idea, thank you! Lillyput4455 (user) 14:15 UTC.— Note to closing admin: Lillyput4455 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Thank you for your reply. Which one of these sources show that signifant coverage, reliable and independent sources are met, and which refs are reliable to be considered from well known critics? if not sure look out from other sources of Tv series- thanks but I find this WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS a bit unconvincing. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This reference is of an international newspaper DAWN, how come it's not a reliable source solely covering the subject? Infact other sources are also reliable though. Sorry, but I find your reasons baseless. "HIP IN PK" is a reliable critic page, check out their social media handles, if you have doubts. Not every website needs to have "About us" page to depict their notability. Hope you get to understand, Many Thanks!! Lillyput4455 (talk) 5th November 2022, 15:10 UTC.
Even having an about us page is insufficient. social media handles is not relevant to reliability, how does these sources have reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Not every website needs to have "About us" page to depict their notability- alternatively, if we regard it as an unreliable site (WP:QUESTIONABLE) or as a self-published source, there is indeed an exception you are touching on, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter. I see no evidence that the authors are Subject-matter expert, you should also see the contributors page of the ref. Therefore, instead of critiquing my comment as baseless I would appreciate an elaboration how it is a reliable source. Besides, the Dawn Images newspaper (not a full newspaper piece, just 113 words including the bolded caption) is reliable but fails WP:SIGCOV, you neglect that WP:GNG describes Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Already have a reliable reference of DAWN Images and now production details with The News International has also been added. Furthermore, the article has expanded to Plot summary too. Now, the enough information about the TV series has been added.Qwef1234 (talk)
  • Comment. I have started a RSN discussion. Also, my AfD rationale is that in addition to the current sources being inadequate per my analysis, my WP:BEFORE search didn't find sources that count towards GNG for the TV series. Per WP:DELREASON, criteria 8: Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline is what I'm intending. Also, this new ref mentions this three times, first time as a trivial mention, second time part of a quote, and third instance providing basic plot and cast details, failing WP:SIGCOV and is mainly about Rehman. Another vote also seems to be resembling WP:POPULARITY IMO. Many thanks! Update: I've added a comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. VickKiang (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then What should be the source of a TV series? If TV series source wouldn't be about the cast and plot, then what else should you expect there? Infact there's a "Review" related reference too. On one hand you talk about WP:SIGCOV and neglects the sources pertaining to the issue and on the other hand you talk about WP:NOTABILITY mentioning the sources are not adequate. Many Thanks ! Lillyput4455 (talk) November 6, 2022, 16:04 UTC
In fact you neglect WP:GNG, and still do not provide a convincing case on providing multiple (emphasised this bold for you) independent, reliable, secondary refs that constitute of significant coverage. On one hand you talk about WP:SIGCOV and neglects the sources pertaining to the issue and on the other hand you talk about WP:NOTABILITY mentioning the sources are not adequate. Many Thanks- I have done an assessment of the current five sources as inadequate and did not find more sources that demonstrate notability, I would like you to explain concretely which sources I missed in contrast to this vague statement. The review piece is unreliable, instead of responding directly to my question how it has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy or that if it is treated as WP:SELFPUBLISHED, how are the authors subject-matter-experts? For the Dawn piece- Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. Please articulate how an announcement column in the images section would not fall under this. Besides, WP:NTV is an essay but it states: It is preferred to have reliable sources discussing production aspects of the episode in question, such as its development and writing; the casting of specific actors; design elements; filming or animation; post-production work; or music, rather than simply recounting the plot. Instead of vague statements of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and accusations of my inadequate WP:BEFORE search and source evaluation, I would appreciate that you could provide a proper sources evaluation yourself. VickKiang (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article is a popular series citing from famous and international newspaper. It should stay on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.88.44.131 (talk) 15:19, 9 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! 08:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- The subject and article should stay on Wikipedia and have adequate strong sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.42.100 (talk) 10:48, 20 November 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 04:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Mongolia International[edit]

2018 Mongolia International (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. zoglophie 14:25, 5 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! 08:49, 12 November 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 04:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Peru International[edit]

2018 Peru International (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. zoglophie 14:24, 5 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! 08:49, 12 November 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 04:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Cote d'Ivoire International[edit]

2018 Cote d'Ivoire International (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. zoglophie 14:23, 5 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! 08:49, 12 November 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 04:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Cameroon International[edit]

2018 Cameroon International (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. zoglophie 14:22, 5 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! 08:49, 12 November 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! 10:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malti Chahar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Malti Chahar (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)

Same issues from the 2021 AfD still apply. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

all good 202.134.174.107 (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Same as nom and prev AfD. There seems to be a repeated attempt to help her make to WP. User4edits (talk) 05:39, 12 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! 08:47, 12 November 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 Magic Pengel: The Quest for Color. Liz Read! Talk! 08:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tensai Bit-Kun: Gramon Battle[edit]

Tensai Bit-Kun: Gramon Battle (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 not find any sources to add to this article that has been unsourced for over a decade. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It did get some news coverage, just nothing in English at all. There's an article here for example. But being an obscure older Japanese-only game that might have reviews that either disappeared due to link rot or be located in print publications makes it very hard to find sources. My bet is that it's notable but that cannot be proven so I will be neutral for now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That source mainly discusses the variety show the game is based on, it seems. It's really nothing more than a passing mention. Looking up the Japanese title, "NHK 天才ビットくん グラモンバトル" (and disregarding the NHK in some searches), I found a mention of it being part of the Doodle Kingdom series (i.e., Magic Pengel: The Quest for Color) by Taito which seems to have garnered a bit more coverage. Maybe merge this into that or create a parent page for the series? The Japanese Wikipedia seems to do that at ラクガキ王国. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge based on the source from Zxcvbnm. This is a verifiable game and may even be notable based on Japanese sources. But it's impossible to write an article without reliable sources. Archrogue (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~ AirshipJungleman29, what is the Merge target? Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Magic Pengel: The Quest for Color. ~~ ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just double-checking...are we sure that this game is part of the Magic Pengel: The Quest for Color series? Joyous! | Talk 20:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus to Keep this article. A rename discussion is occurring on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 08:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation of Kherson[edit]

Liberation of Kherson (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)

Redundant and a stub; little of the article's contents either can't be or aren't already covered by 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive or the Kherson article itself, and the lack of a combat situation means there's no need for a battle page a la the Second Battle of Lyman. The Kip (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is a significant event in the war and is deserving of its own page. The references and information already listed are far more than would be seen in a stub article (and as Adoring nanny mentioned most articles start as stubs and grow from there). BogLogs (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are no specific sections in either the article about Kherson itself or the 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive that contain the exact portrayal of information that the article "Liberation of Kherson" contains. In order for the information to be considered redundant, close to 100% of the reliable/significant contents of the liberation article would need to be found in those articles, but as it stands, this is not the case. Indeed, I don't believe that the article is redundant since Russia's announcement of its withdrawal from the city was making global headlines only within a few days of Ukraine's liberation of the city. The liberation of Kherson is a significant event in the context of the entire Russian war narrative. Russia's loss of Kherson city means that it no longer controls the capital of one of the oblasts that it claims, demoting Kherson Oblast to the same status as Zaporizhzhia Oblast (in which Russia never controlled the capital, Zaporizhzhia, in the first place). This is a major prestige blow for Putin and his generals, and it could signal the beginning of the end for Russia's declared annexations of four oblasts of Ukraine. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many similar examples in which the liberation of an important city has its own article, apart from the article on the war and on the stage of that war. That is not to say the article cannot improve, but the topic as such is fully deserving of an article. Jeppiz (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Liberation of Kherson is a significant enough event to have its own article. Russian withdrawal from the only regional capitol they've captured and kept throughout the war, followed by liberation from Ukraine. Also, it doesn't matter if it's a stub. When I first saw this article yesterday, it was a three sentences, and has grown since then, and will keep growing.
DinoSoupCanada (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you imply the only reason we should keep this article is because Kherson is a regional capital? If there's no other arguments in favor, this article's notability is questionable. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Many sources (that you can see above) show that the liberation was a turning point in the war. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There will be many claimed "turning point[s] in the war", we need to leave that to historians to decide. Its just a regional city, not the capital and the war isn't over, so its far too early to assess its significance. Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All similar articles, such as Liberation of Paris and Liberation of Kalamata, are about actual military engagements. This is not the case of this article, so there's not a set precedent. Also, some editors claim that the information on the liberation of Kherson cannot possibly be hosted in any other article. Then how come we managed to do this when the russians withdrew from northern Ukraine, Snake Island, Kharkiv Oblast, Lyman and northern Kherson Oblast? There's no articles for any of these withdrawals. I also question why should Kherson be the exclusive location to have an article of its own and not other relevant localities like Beryslav, Chornobaivka or Snihurivka.
Some of the editors wishing to keep the article make valid points in that this is a relevant event for the war and that reliable sources describe it as such. We could perhaps expand the scope of this article, to something like "Russian withdrawal from whatever we can name the salient" or even a general article for the Russian-occupied salient at the other side of the Dnipro as a whole since its creation in February (which I think has potential for becoming a long article), in the style of for example Kamenets–Podolsky pocket (not an exact equivalent). Because what is this article in its current state supposed to cover? That russians left the city, civilians celebrated and some country officials gave some declarations over it? Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's a better way to do it. Most of this stuff is about the withdrawal anyway. "Russian withdrawal from the right-bank of Kherson Oblast" makes more sense than this one article. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This excludes the liberated part of Mykolaiv Oblast. We should look for names for this salient in reliable sources, perhaps a common name already exists, in either English, Ukrainian or russian. Super Ψ Dro 13:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see Super Dro already proposed a title similar to the one I suggested below under 'Question'. It seems that we will be able to agree on a title with something like Russian withdrawal from..., now we just need to agree on those last few words. I proposed Kherson, but that may be too vague and too limited. Even Kherson city or the right-bank of Kherson Oblast might not do justice to the other towns on the right bank that have been abandoned by the Russian military, including the Mykolaiv Oblast parts, as Super Dro correctly pointed out. We could make it even broader, like right-bank Ukraine, but that would probably cause confusion with the Kyiv offensive and not be specific enough. I do think 'Kherson' should be in the title. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Russian withdrawal from the right-bank of Kherson Oblast and Snihurivka" DinoSoupCanada (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the most accurate name, yes, though it is a bit long (haha). I'm tentatively in favour. Incidentally, I found the Category:Military withdrawals and took the liberty to place this article in it; seems appropriate. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it is a little long. But there's not really anything else to describe the withdrawal from Kherson AND occupied parts Mykolaiv.
  • good idea
DinoSoupCanada (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ternovi Pody (and possibly some other villages) was held by Russian forces until 9 November. And that village is on the Mykolaiv Raion, not on the Snihurivka Raion. So this is not valid. Super Ψ Dro 14:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I didn't propose a rename of the article, I proposed an expansion of its scope. And I also want to give priority to my proposal for an article for the February-November Russian salient at the right of the Dnipro rather than an article for the withdrawal of the region. That only extends the geographic scope of the article but also carries the notability problems to those other locations. I would still vote delete for an article on the Russian withdrawal on the area, as that could be easily covered on 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive. Super Ψ Dro 14:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can have that opinion, but most people here support keeping the article or renaming it and adding content for the withdrawal. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'an article for the February-November Russian salient at the right of the Dnipro'? Isn't that already covered by Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast and Russian occupation of Mykolaiv Oblast? That seems to me a WP:CONTENTFORK and I'm not sure if we need that.
On the long name: I think per WP:COMMONNAME Russian withdrawal from Kherson should be favoured above longer names that may be more WP:PRECISE, but not commonly used in RS. Similarly, articles such as Liberation of Paris do not add the names of lots of suburbs that were liberated/abandoned around the same time as Paris itself. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russian withdrawal from Kherson sounds fine. Most sources use that anyway:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/11/europe/ukraine-russia-kherson-dnipro-explainer-intl/index.html
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/10/1135738566/russia-is-retreating-so-why-is-the-u-s-nudging-ukraine-to-compromise
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukrainian-forces-move-into-key-town-north-of-kherson-11667991035
https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/11/11/russia-claims-to-have-completed-its-withdrawal-from-kherson
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/11/russians-are-withdrawing-from-kherson-but-the-battle-is-far-from-over.html
https://www.euronews.com/2022/11/11/ukrainian-flags-raised-as-russian-troops-retreat-from-liberated-kherson-city DinoSoupCanada (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With an article on this salient, we could comment on the military aspects. The Russian occupation articles focus more on what lands did Russia occupy of which province and what was the situation on the localities and for their inhabitants during the occupation. But with such an article, we could comment on how did Russia get to Kherson (as far as I know, it was done with the help of collaborators), the supply of the Russian military there, the aims for Mykolaiv and Odesa (it is said this withdrawal gave the definitive blow to these objectives), the Ukrainian siege of the area with the use of artillery, how it was a resource drain for the Russians on how that might have impacted their final decision to withdraw. Is it WP:CONTENTFORK? Possibly, but I believe it has more potential than the current article.
Similarly, articles such as Liberation of Paris do not add the names of lots of suburbs that were liberated/abandoned around the same time as Paris itself. but are those areas the subject of the article? Paris is a city in the middle of a huge plain, we have to put limits to the scope of the article somewhere. Now, some of Paris' outskirts are indeed included in the article, but that is because the article is not about a peaceful German withdrawal but about the military engagements that had to take place in those suburbs for the Germans to leave Paris. This article and the Paris one are not equivalents. As for this article however, the right-bank salient is a clearly defined geographical area, so the limits for the scope of the article are pretty clear from the start. Super Ψ Dro 15:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to make that, you can, but this article should stay. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Paris is a city in the middle of a huge plain' So is Kherson, with 283,649 inhabitants (2021) as opposed to just 38,849 (2020) in the Snihurivka Raion (some parts of which had already been abandoned/liberated before 9 November, or were never occupied in the first place). I think leaving out Mykolaiv areas from the title is justified. We should mention them inside the article, but not in the title. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was not my point. I meant that since the occupation of the Paris area had no defined limits, we limited the article to the city itself and to the suburbs were fighting for the city took place. For the Kherson salient we have a clearly defined area, everything the russians still held by 9 November on the right bank of the Dnipro. Also, from what I understand, you suggest to include the whole area in this article but only mention Kherson in the title. Geographically this probably implies including 1-2% of the scope territory on the title; this surely does not happen in the Paris article, as it is a big city and the scope is not this wide. Population-wise, we leave 1/3 to 1/2 (I get this number by adding up Beryslav Raion, Bilozerka Raion and Snihurivka Raion) of the inhabitants outside the title.
I am completely opposed to your proposal of expanding the scope of this article but restricting the title to Kherson. There isn't any precedent in Wikipedia for excluding such vast percentages of population and territory from the title of an article compared to its scope. If we expand the scope, we will have to search for an appropriate title. This isn't even that hard, why abandon this alternative already? I can think of "Withdrawal from Russian-occupied right-bank Ukraine" or "Russian withdrawal from right-bank Kherson and Mykolaiv oblasts" right now. Super Ψ Dro 16:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guess how many hits Google has for "Withdrawal from Russian-occupied right-bank Ukraine" or "Russian withdrawal from right-bank Kherson and Mykolaiv oblasts"? 0.
The article Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts has a justifiably long time. You and I agreed on that, and it is probably mostly due to our efforts that the title was changed successfully. In this case, however, I really don't think such long titles are justified, nor required.
'For the Kherson salient we have a clearly defined area'. If that was true, we wouldn't be discussing how to include bits and pieces of Mykolaiv into the title, but to exclude left-bank Kherson. Perhaps the easiest solution then would be 'Russian withdrawal from the Kherson salient'? Unfortunately that too has zero results in Google.
I think WP:COMMONNAME will have to be our guiding principle. In some comments below, a consensus seems to be emerging to have Russian withdrawal from Kherson as the title, with Liberation of Kherson as an alternative name in the first sentence and infobox. I have been so WP:BOLD as to already carry out the latter, and other users seem to be fine with that compromise. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you imply that an event that happened yesterday already has a common name in reliable sources? The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war was two years ago, and still the consensus on the talk page is that there's not a common name for the war yet. I reject the notion that a common, proper name already exists for the event. It's just too recent, sources are just using sentences to describe what happened. The same was the case for the 30 September annexation, so the title that was sought was the one that was both the shortest and most descriptive as possible. There's no proper name here, so we should look for a descriptive title even if it's abnormally long, and a descriptive title should describe the contents of the article as accurately as possible. Currently, it is far from doing so, because the scope of the article was expanded from the city to the whole area.
If that was true, we wouldn't be discussing how to include bits and pieces of Mykolaiv into the title the reason why we had been discussing this was because there was no proper name both for this event and for the Russian military salient at the right of the Dnipro. Though this may not be the case for the latter, perhaps the ISW for example came up with a name long ago, but this requires further investigation. Super Ψ Dro 19:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“The WP:TITLE indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles.” The title should probably not contain a detailed geographical gazetteer of the territories related to the subject.  —Michael Z. 16:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has WP:SIGCOV and doesn't have to be all too focused on the military engagements (which were indeed minimal) to still be relevant to discuss socio-economic, military-logistical/stragetic, cultural, political etc. events/developments during and around this change of control of Kherson city. I would however advise caution when it comes to using the POV word 'liberation' per WP:MILNAME (see also my comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history#On maintaining NPOV terminology. Unless this is the WP:COMMONNAME (which seems to be the case when reviewing RS media coverage), such terms should be avoided. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean. We are in a project where the language is the lingua franca of the West. And we are talking about the liberation by a country of one of its illegally occupied cities where the vast majority of people belong to the titular ethnicity of said country. I haven't checked yet but I have no doubt "liberation" is widely used in English-language sources. Super Ψ Dro 14:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A quick Google search for "Liberation of Kherson" has 92.600 hits. "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" has 94.300 hits (more than I expected, actually). Not to say that all those hits are equally reliable of course, but the numbers are pretty close and slightly in favour of "withdrawal from". On a sidenote, I do call it "liberation of" in my private life, but on Wikipedia we need to follow certain standards such as NPOV, and for the latter "withdrawal from" seems more appropriate. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Super Dromaeosarus said (and which I am elaborating), the situation in Kherson Oblast is distinctive in that most of the inhabitants are ethnic-Ukrainians who mostly hold a nationalist Ukrainian identity and are mostly in allegiance with the government of Ukraine. So, the only possible demographic who could oppose the descriptor "liberation" would be Russia, Russophiles in Ukraine, and Russophiles abroad. IMO, there is no real issue of neutrality here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are still millions of people, Jargo. The rest of the world may think 'X', but just because they are in the majority doesn't mean that 'X' is a neutral way of saying it. WP:MILNAME, WP:NDESC and other policies are clear we should avoid non-neutral terms if we can. As Russian withdrawal from Kherson is a perfectly acceptable title per WP:COMMONNAME, and Liberation of Kherson is widely considered an acceptable alternative name to be mentioned elsewhere in the article, this seems the best solution according to English Wikipedia's guidelines. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To put it bluntly, nobody cares about those alleged "millions of people". I personally don't care about any Russophiles either in Russia or abroad. The only Russophiles whose opinions might actually matter are those Russophiles who live inside of Ukraine (excluding the ones that were imported into the occupied territories during the ongoing war; i.e. only including the ones that actually lived in Ukraine before the Russo-Ukrainian war began in 2014). Based on the principle of "self-determination", my position has solid ground. Self-determination involves primarily the inhabitants of a given territory, and the opinions of the outside world tend to be largely irrelevant. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good as your personal opinion, but here on English Wikipedia, we must abide by WP:NPOV. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Self-determination is a neutral point of view. Unless you believe that it is okay for imperialist colonisers to force foreign people under their rule. Obligatory Slava Ukraini. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't agree on the basic fact that the Russians under Vladimir Putin are the bad guys, then I'm afraid that we won't get very far. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've also explained in another reply elsewhere on this page that the two titles "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" and "Liberation of Kherson" don't describe the exact same thing. Obviously, there is a discrepancy between whether "Kherson" refers to just the city alone or to the entire surrounding area. There is also the discrepancy between the former event being something that was carried out by Russia, and the latter event being something that was carried out by Ukraine. The two events are not synonymous; they are in fact different events. But they are certainly interrelated and go hand-in-hand. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The title is not POV. Liberation is an objective term for what took place when occupation forces were forced out and the legal pre-invasion régime took military control. It is not an exact synonym of “withdrawal,” which only describes half of the event. It has nothing to do with “ethnicity,” and trying to pull events into an inappropriate ethnic or racial framing is a step along a bad road, to put it politely.
But let’s save the naming arguments for a naming discussion. —Michael Z. 16:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What if we renamed it Russian withdrawal from Kherson, and dated it 9–11 November 2022? This is a name or description also often seen in RS and seems to me an NPOV name for the event. Moreover, one could argue, and indeed some users are doing so on this very page, that the change of control of Kherson city is more due to the withdrawal of the Russian military (officially very organised and planned by the Russian Federation and formally initiated on 9 November by Putin; in practice much less so) as their position was becoming untenable, than that they were forcibly expelled by the Ukrainian military during countless military engagements during these three days (of which we have seen relatively few in the Kherson proper urban areas). The term 'liberation' seems less appropriate then. De facto the ZSU stepped into a power vacuum left behind by the retreating occupying forces. Just curious about your thoughts, as this gives a different angle and scope to what has happened, and I hope it is a more accurate and tenable one. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Liberation doesn't have to come at the end of street to street fighting. If they were forced to leave because their supply lines were cut and the position was untenable it is no less a liberation of the area.
    That said, It wouldn't be the end of the world to me to have the title of the article change but this situation certainly qualifies as a liberation of an occupied area. BogLogs (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You make some good points. Also because there is WP:SIGCOV for both names, I wouldn't mind having Russian withdrawal from Kherson as the article title, and Liberation of Kherson mentioned as an alternative name in the first sentence and the infobox. That seems like a good compromise to me. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support
    DinoSoupCanada (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That summary is inaccurate original research. The Russian withdrawal was forced, the culmination of months of Ukrainian shaping operations, and long overdue from the Russian military POV. We still have little idea what losses either side suffered during the last weeks and days of operations and the mop-up that may still be in progress.  —Michael Z. 16:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Disambiguation - Per WP:NPOV, We should rename it Russian withdrawal from Kherson. Sharouser (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What NPOV are you talking about? This is a rather close similarity to Liberation of Paris in that the occupiers withdraw and the army of the country to which the city belongs move in. There is no NPOV issue here. Jeppiz (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst a rename or scope-broadening or article merger might be in order, there certainly isn't an NPOV issue here. If an NPOV issue genuinely exists, then I implore you to explain your assertion. Otherwise, you are simply throwing around big words without caring what they mean. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on name A few users above suggest we should name the article Russian withdrawal instead. That is not really in line with policy. First, the users are correct that little fighting was involved, but that would also apply, for example, to Liberation of Paris. Some fighting with the resistance notwithstanding, the Germans withdrew before the Allies moved into Paris. Second, a quick look at reliable sources show that they overwhelmingly use Liberation of Kherson. As per policy, we should go with RS. Jeppiz (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We're staying with "Liberation of Kherson" and using "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" as an alternative name. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The user Sharouser did not express the same opinion above. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we focus on whether this article should exist or not and whether it needs to change its scope in order to be kept or not. The name should be discussed on a formal RM. Super Ψ Dro 16:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DinoSoupCanada: 1.5 hours earlier you agreed with me and BogLogs to use Russian withdrawal from Kherson as the title, and Liberation of Kherson as alternative name. Sharouser and Jargo also agree that Russian withdrawal from Kherson should be the title.
@Super Dromaeosaurus: apart from you, nom and Mztourist, nobody currently seems to be in favour of deleting the article. The sole argument you have put forward so far seems to be that there is not enough relevance or material for a standalone article, but it is pretty evident from the current state of the article, from the sources gathered here and from the searches we've done for fitting titles that it meets WP:SIGCOV. The contents have also grown so that it is no longer a stub. Besides, per WP:SIZERULE, the article 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive is already over 100kb, and a split off would be justified. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never explicitly agreed that "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" should be the new title. I simply said that it remains a possibility, and I'm indifferent to whether this becomes the new title or "Liberation of Kherson" remains in place. The main point I was getting at is that "Liberation of Kherson" does not genuinely have an NPOV issue. | Note: I would say that these two titles actually describe two distinctive albeit related events. The Russian withdrawal did not necessarily entail the liberation of Kherson, and for two days, it remained ambiguous as to what the status of Kherson would be (in maps published by international media outlets between ~9 and ~11 November, it tends to show the Kherson area as sparsely/loosely occupied by Russian forces). The Ukrainian liberation of Kherson definitively occurred on 11 November. The Russian withdrawal is still ongoing and will probably end after a few more days. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got confused. The reason I said we should use "withdrawal from" as an alternative name is because at this time, that is the alt name.
So I stand by my original statement; The article should be called "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" with "Liberation of Kherson" as the alternative name. I got mixed up between everything happening in this article. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay, we all get confused sometimes. :) Thanks for clarifying! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DinoSoupCanada (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This event is notable enough to justify having its own article. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This event is significant to the counteroffensive thus, it is notable. Evercool1 (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rename this page and all is well. Flyerhotai (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the discussion perhaps we should close with keeping the article via WP:SNOWBALL and move on to Talk:Liberation of Kherson#Title to discuss the title name and article contents in more detail there. BogLogs (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've already copied a couple of paragraphs to the "Abandonment" section of the main "Battle of Kherson" article. I don't see that there is a lot left to salvage from this article. It's an unedifying "yaa boo, we won" sight. It's shameful glorification and unencyclopedic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. We're working carefully to make sure that we abide by all English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, such as WP:NPOV. If you think the title should be changed to "Russian withdrawal from Kherson", then please join the discussion at Talk:Liberation of Kherson#Title. I don't think it's a good idea to just copypaste some material to Battle of Kherson. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Nederlandse Leeuw, also the Battle of Kherson article is about the Russian seizure of the city from 24 February – 2 March. It's not reasonable to delete one article just to overload another article with information far beyond its scope. BogLogs (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If this article is deleted, then where would be the best place for some of that material? Putting it in the Battle of Kherson article seems like a good backup plan. It also demonstrates the redundancy of this article. Which is probably the truthful motive for your objection. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's deleted, parts should be in Battle of Kherson and southern counteroffensive. It'll have to be very watered down though, which is why we should keep the article. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Many of the deleters seem to think this article is about a withdrawal that took place in a vacuum over two days. But sources tell us this event is a culmination of the Ukrainian offensive that started near the end of August and result of calculated shaping operations, that Russian generals had been asking Putin for permission to withdraw from the right bank of the Dnipro for many weeks, and that the abandonment of Kherson may have been decided by the time of the Russian occupation authorities’ call for evacuation on October 13. And we have yet to learn of the combat actions that took place surrounding the withdrawal, including Russian losses as they tried to cross the Dnipro. There’s much more yet to be added to this significant article. —Michael Z. 16:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I think that you're mistaken. I think that most delete-voters are aware of the build-up. We are also aware, however, that the material sits best within the context of the Battle of Kherson article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you think the withdrawal and liberation of Kherson is best covered in an article about the exact opposite event that took place in March? DinoSoupCanada (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not unheard of to merge two small articles of a town or city being taken and then retaken shortly afterwards, especially if both battles are barely notable and have relatively little WP:SIGCOV. But both Kherson articles are rather large (2,220 words and 2,671 words), and there is a 9-month gap between the the capture and recapture. I don't think a merger is reasonable at this point. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that the "significance" comes mostly from the fact that Russia declared that it had annexed Kherson Oblast (including the city of Kherson) on 30 September 2022. The actual length of the occupation (over eight months) is also notable, but it's less important. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:15, 14 November 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 08:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marchesi (family)[edit]

Marchesi (family) (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 has been tagged as unsourced since at least 2009 and shows no sign of becoming sourced, and tagged as non-notable since 2019. A 2007 attempt at the page provided more information, all of which was unsourced. Ultimately there's no chance for this page until something is published in a reliable source. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Italy. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To begin with it would be necessary to define who are the members that make up this family. The name "Marchesi" is not rare and can be traced linguistically back to medieval times (at least). This article, supposedly about a family from Lugo, would at best be mis-titled. Lamona (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am postivie that whoever made that, probaley had that last name. I couldnt find anything related to that on google and it fails WP:GNG.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 06:56, 17 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkin Sumaila Dansumaila Akilu[edit]

Sarkin Sumaila Dansumaila Akilu (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)

Fake person in a fake lineage by a sock puppet hoaxer. Several of the books given as sources are not even real. There are no mentions of this person anywhere online. Zaynab1418 (talk) 06:39, 12 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of stabbings[edit]

List of stabbings (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)

Impossibly broad topic. We can't list every recorded stabbing in human history on a single page. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. There seems to be no clear inclusion criteria for such a broad scope of stabbing events that have happened in history. Ajf773 (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Crime. Ajf773 (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a rough minimum, there are 550 articles in Category:Stabbing attacks up to level 2 subcategories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have too many articles that should be listed is not a valid reason to delete. If the list gets too long, break it into sub-list, such as location like they do with all the shooting articles. Dream Focus 13:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how many people, even notable ones, have been stabbed in human history? Bladed/pointy weapons have been around since humans learned to sharpen rocks and sticks. Dronebogus (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A list or lists can provide more info than a category can, and this one does. Just delete the ones without articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete List can only be indiscriminate in its coverage which negates its informational value. Lamona (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way too broad and currently hopelessly incomplete. Can't believe that nobody bothered to add Assassination of Julius Caesar. tsk tsk. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:11, 13 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aashiq Colony[edit]

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

The current article is unsourced excepting for a TV-streaming page, which is nowhere near WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE did not find sources meeting WP:GNG or WP:NFILM except for trivial mentions, e.g., 1. VickKiang (talk) 05:39, 12 November 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! 04:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Martin's Cathedral (Gander)[edit]

St. Martin's Cathedral (Gander) (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)

Minimal sourcing and I am not sure it meets WP:GNG; also see WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NCHURCH---IMR2000 (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While there's not an explicit policy wherein the cathedrals of major denominations get a free pass to notability, I would argue that there is a degree of congruence with WP:NBISHOP; this WP Religion guide disagrees. In any case, I have initiated the introduction of sources not easily accessible on the open web. This is very obviously not a failure to WP:BEFORE as there is not the expectation any given editor has access to a newspaper archive and the sources therein need to be further combed to ensure significant coverage. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unrelated: getting a ton of annoying false-positives where the scans read "Matins" as "Martin's". ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while it certainly doesn’t rival Reims, [20], I tend to agree that it being the cathedral of a diocese implies notability. And further sources can be found online, although admittedly not many. KJP1 (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's a problem that we have so little coverage of this church that we don't know when it was built etc. I have access to newspapers.com, the Wikipedia library (of course), and a Canadian academic theological library, and I can't find anything significant about the church other than its verifiable existence and its role in the 1985 memorial service. All the same I am confident that there would have been at least local coverage of the building and commissioning, but that these sources simply aren't accessible online. Having said all of that, I think the topic is notable and just about squeaks by based on the current sourcing. Thparkth (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly Keep -- Cathedrals of the Anglican Communion, in countries where that is the dominant church are notable without more. This is technically a pro-cathedral, a church that has been promoted to cathedral status. It probably became one in 1976, when the diocese of Newfoundland was divided, so that an additional Cathedral was needed. I would have liked to have seen a few sentences as to when the church was built and when it became a cathedral, but that is a matter where improvement is needed; certainly not deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the multiple reliable sources references that have been added to the article since nomination so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cathedrals of major denominations have always been considered to be notable. And if you actually read WP:NCHURCH you'll discover that it doesn't apply to buildings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Article has now been improved to the point where the nomination can likely be withdrawn.--IMR2000 (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@IMR2000: I appreciate you raising this for AfD. This was an article produced by a somewhat notorious hypercontributor who left literally thousands of inaccurate and subpar stub creations in his wake. Your AfD helped move the article to that point that someone looking for information on this cathedral can turn to Wikipedia. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning delete First off, this building is not a cathedral. It is a "pro-cathedral", which is to say, a parish church used as if it were the cathedral. I'm dubious about an automatic notability pass for cathedrals anyway because our image of a Gothic or Baroque pile with a few centuries of history is pretty misleading once one gets away from Europe. I found nothing discussing this as a building, and the various events listed in the article are largely routine episcopal acts that could happen wherever convenient. Mangoe (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm the only one that seems to be adding anything to the article, I'll chime in to say that you're right that much of the information—especially the final paragraph—is fairly typical episcopal matters that contribute little if any to the sourcing and coverage needs of GNG. However, there are two issues with your position. The first is that a pro-cathedral in this context refers to a church that was a parish and is now a cathedral, albeit one not purpose-built. Some sources describe St. Martin's as simply a cathedral, so I tend towards viewing the purposes of the structure as being of equal utility to other cathedrals. This only lends it some basic notability that, according to GNG, would require independent extensive coverage to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. We have that, if only barely, through several news articles mostly from two events in 1985. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it should be noted that parochial ecclesiological nomenclature is a frustrating affair; in this case, the cathedral's parish incorporates both the cathedral itself and a chapel elsewhere in Gander (see here). ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article has been signficiantly improved and is a far cry from the version that was nominated. It certainly seems to meet WP:GNG and as Necrothesp pointed out, WP:NCHURCH is about "church" as an organization and is not about the physical building; those are two distinct entities. The building appears to meet notability guidelines. - Aoidh (talk) 17:41, 16 November 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. Weak Keep/Weak Delete opinions leave me at No Consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Topher (rapper)[edit]

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

Extent of notability unclear. Most of the sources in the article mention him briefly as a conservative TikTok star. An article in the Washington Post covers him in depth, a track of his charted at #1 on the iTunes Rap Digital Song Sales, and he performed at the Jan. 6 MAGA rally. Is this enough to establish notability? Mooonswimmer 17:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Mississippi. Shellwood (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having a song charting on apple isn't considered notable, I'd call the MAGA event questionably notable. On the whole, not enough for an article here. Interesting historical tidbit perhaps. Oaktree b (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    the Washington Post article is about the best one, the wired one mentions him briefly, the rest are smaller than that. I don't think we have enough sources for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - This one is an admittedly close call and I won't fight it, but the rapper has some reliable media coverage, mostly because being a MAGA rapper is crazy enough to get noticed. The article already has sources for a (brief) interview at Fox News and his (brief) profile in Washington Post. Under his real name Christopher Townsend he also has some coverage of his social media bans, such as a (brief) mention in Wired and fuller/semi-reliable magazine-style coverage here: [21], [22], [23]. Once again, most of those are brief and/or marginally reliable, but put all the pieces together and he might have enough for a basic stub article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- The Washington Post article is in-depth, significant coverage, and probably more could be extracted from it than is in the article; but nothing else seems to be. It's a tough call because this guy falls in between media beats: not primarily a pundit/influencer so not covered in the media along those lines, but also not the kind of musician the mainstream music press is going to touch. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate Keep -- Subject has an in depth article in the Washington Post, and a local newspaper article from the Associated Press, he was interviewed for a CNN segment, however it didn't seem to be focusing on Topher himself, it briefly touched on him and his music, rather it focused on his use of TikTok. In addition to those sources, he has charted on Billboard. He also made a song for a major motion picture released by Sony and Columbia Pictures, directed by Denzel Washington. He meets multiple points in WP:MUS. I agree it could go either way with news coverage, he has maybe 3 articles that meet Wikipedia standards, but in terms of notability it seems like he meets other points in the guideline. HungryHighway (talk) 11:16, 4 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! 21:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moderate Keep - The Washington Post article is strong and the same goes for the Associated Press article from the Clarion Ledger. So 2 GNG sources, plus the magazine coverage brought up by Doomsdayer520 which contributes to WP:MUS, plus the Billboard charting (which is arguably the weakest, but still), I think inclusion is reasonable to deletion. —Sirdog (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject has some coverage in reliable sources, especially in-depth coverage in the Washington Post article. It meets WP:GNG --Assyrtiko (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Assyrtiko Lilsusanalex (talk) 15:41, 13 November 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Nicaragua[edit]

Mister Nicaragua (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)

While I agree with @King of Hearts:' note that El Nuevo Diario is a major Nicaraguan newspaper, its 2019 closure makes the archives a challenging search, although I found a small handful beyond what is included in the article, but they're event listings/notices of title being awarded. I am unable to find significant coverage of this pageant outside of pageant websites, which do not appear to be RSes. Star Mississippi 18:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Nicaragua. Star Mississippi 18:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll probably come back later when I have more time to contribute, but I recommend looking at La Prensa's archives (the last remaining major independent paper if I recall), especially the articles tagged with "mister nicaragua". At a first glance, it seems that some of those articles may give significant coverage. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 23:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess I'll note here that I don't have access to the paper; instead, I used a workaround to cirumvent the paywall. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 00:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: After checking several articles from La Prensa, I do believe this subject is notable. There is a lot more coverage than what I checked, and some of what I don't mention here may be considered significant coverage by some editors; I am picking the ones that, in my opinion, are the strongest. Two of the articles on the 2020 contest give significant coverage in my opinion [24] [25], and the third, while being part interview, does support the pageant's overall importance in nicaragua. The next best article, in my opinion, is one from 2013. Those articles plus the ones from 100% noticias confer notability by the WP:GNG. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 00:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:21, 12 November 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. It is a fairly basic encyclopedic principle that the notability of a topic is determined by sources discussing it. The one keep !vote, though made in good faith, is essentially attempting an end-run around this principle. The arguments advanced in it largely could be applied to any well-defined group of topics regardless of notability, and therefore do not carry weight; the only one that is subject-specific is the assertion that the topic is encyclopedic, which is a circular argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Shreveport[edit]

List of tallest buildings in Shreveport (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 extensive recent consensus on these types of lists. Minimal navigational purpose given that the majority of these are redlinks unlikely to become articles, and the topic of tall buildings in Shreveport as a whole has no significant coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment in fact the majority 6/10 already have articles. Jahaza (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon me, miscounted. However one was actually a mislink to a Boston corporation rather than to a building in Shreveport, so it's properly 5/10. And two - Louisiana Tower and Hilton Hotel Convention Center (Shreveport) - do not appear to have significant coverage either, so will likely be deleted shortly, which would make it 3/10.
    In any case, the main concern is the lack of sourcing for the topic as a whole. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Buildings and structures in Shreveport, Louisiana exist. If a list article was created to list all of the things there, the information in the columns could be merged into it. Dream Focus 05:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per (bold mine) building size is not a Wikipedia policy-based criteria and that Wikipedia lists do not require persons, places, things on lists to be individually notable. Per WP:NLIST, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y")", such as this one which is well-organised.
    • Wikipedia:SALAT: This list fulfills objective as it is limited in size and topic and is not trivial and is encyclopedic and related to human knowledge
    • Wikipedia:LISTPURP #1: This list fulfills requirement because the list structured around a theme and is annotated.
    • Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA: This list fits this criteria because listed items fit its narrow scope and are topically relevant making it encyclopedic, comprehensive (and possibly) complete.
    • Wikipedia:NOTDIR#1: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a loosely associated topic and its entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.
    • Wikipedia:CSC: This list fulfills this criteria explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. Djflem (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All of these arguments were advanced at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama, which closed as clear consensus to delete in 2020. I don't see the point in individually responding to them again - anyone who wants to see that done can read the previous discussion. Once again none of these arguments addresses the fact that there is clear consensus, developed over the past few years, that "tallest buildings" lists require WP:SIGCOV and must pass WP:LISTN. Interested readers can refer to this search of "tallest buildings" AfDs organized by creation date and see that over the past few years they generally all close as delete or in rare cases merge, especially for minor cities and towns. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list topic does not seem to be notable. Delete.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:SALAT may describe what lists may or may not be "appropriate" but they still must demonstrate notability. As for things like WP:LISTPURP, by my reading it actually fails that criteria; there is nothing in this list that is not present in the individual articles of the notable entries, and so its value as a list is inconsequential. While WP:NLIST may say that there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of cross-categorized lists, that does not mean that such lists are exempt from needing to show notability at all. This article fails WP:NLIST, as I could not find any sources that describe this article's subject or its entries as a group, which as the above list of previous AfDs shows, is the practical minimum expectation for these "tallest buildings" lists. - Aoidh (talk) 19:25, 16 November 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! 00:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Almaty[edit]

List of tallest buildings in Almaty (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 extensive recent consensus on these types of lists. Minimal navigational purpose given that the majority of these are redlinks unlikely to become articles, and the topic of tall buildings in Almaty as a whole has no significant coverage that I could find. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article fails WP:NLIST. Sources do not appear to describe tall buildings in Almaty as a group in any way. The ru.wikipedia article, ar.wikipedia article, and tr.wikipedia article do not provide any additional sourcing that could be used either (with the possible exception of this, but an Emporis database is just that, a database without context and is not an examination of the group in any way, it is a routine listing that supposedly existed for every city in their database). - Aoidh (talk) 19:07, 16 November 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 00:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of routes in Jefferson County, West Virginia[edit]

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

Also adding:

List of county routes in Berkeley County, West Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of county routes in Jefferson County, West Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of county routes in Lewis County, West Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of routes in Morgan County, West Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of county routes in Morgan County, West Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of county routes in Ohio County, West Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY#simplelists. This is looking at a map and listing off every numbered highway that exists within the county. The same organization can be handled better as a category. –Fredddie™ 03:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the "List of routes in..." lists per nom. These should be handled in categories, not lists.
The "List of county routes in..." lists need to be discussed separately as they are state-owned roads per page 58 of [26]. If they're analogous to secondary highways in other states, then table-based lists of them may be appropriate, but that's a different discussion to the idea of listing all state routes in a county in a list vs. a category. Imzadi 1979 → 04:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd rather have one decent article about the county route system than potentially have 55 lists dividing up 30,000+ miles of roadway. –Fredddie™ 05:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at West Virginia State Highway System, it appears that there are trunk secondary highway and spur secondary highway classifications, the latter of which has the fractional numbers. The trunks may warrant some coverage, while the spurs warrant none, or only coverage in notes like "CR 1 has spurs 1/1 through 1/15" for an entry on CR 1 in Berkeley County. This should be discussed separately because the details are different than the other two lists, which should just be deleted. At the end of the day, there may be a way to merge these county route lists into a single list, but warrants discussion outside of this nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 06:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per rationales above. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 05:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fredddie, could you post an AFD notification on the talk page of the editors who created these pages? It would be appreciated, I'm sure. They should know about this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh sorry! Doing now. –Fredddie™ 20:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. SounderBruce 07:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the two “list of routes” lists as categories better handle the need for highways in a county. However, I an Neutral on deleting the “list of county routes” lists. I am not sure about deleting lists of county highways as they would not be covered in a category. I feel we need to have a discussion elsewhere about whether we should have coverage of county highways in a list by county or just an overview article about the county route system in a state. It appears in some states such as West Virginia having a list of county highways can be excessive and listing almost every road in that county. Dough4872 12:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the List of routes in pages as better handled by a category. As far as the county routes pages, I lean towards merging into List of county routes in West Virginia and dropping the spurs. County routes are generally notable enough to be included in a list, however I am concerned that we will never be able to say more about each fractional route than what is on a map (and certainly we would get more results for searching for Turner Avenue than CR 1/17). I will note that I did find a reliable map from DOT [27], however doing a cursory Google Map search it seems that all except the most residential roads are numbered [28]. We don't have articles on most Forest Roads or even list them. --Rschen7754 17:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all, I contributed some to these articles and I am Neutral about however you all decide. A lot of my original contribution happened when I was volunteering with the Morgan County Commission as a high school student, at the time there was no digital GIS system for the county and the only road data available online was decades out-of-date. Every county in West Virginia had this problem so I contributed for some surrounding counties as well. Many of my original edits were ridiculously excessive and were undone long ago, because at that time I didn't have a sense for what was notable enough to be included on a public encyclopedia like this. Anyway, if it would help the discussion, I have some more info to share. In West Virginia, every publicly-maintained road has a number and the Department of Transportation uses the numbers instead of names to identify the roads (Virginia does this too but their system is very different). Before the state's post-9/11 emergency addressing reforms, mailing addresses were mostly USPS-specific Rural Route addresses and road names were not very standardized, so the route numbers were more organizationally expedient for the state government. Now, the names are determined on the county level, while the numbers are still on the state level. The single-number county routes are theoretically medium-level trunk roads, the fractional numbers are theoretically minor public roads, and the 900 roads are part of the Home Access Road Program (HARP) by which the state has maintenance authority over neighborhood cul-de-sacs. Yes, this numbering system really goes down to the level of neighborhood streets. While including only the main, single-number county routes on Wikipedia seems to make sense, I say "theoretically" above because this system has been around in some form since circa 1920s and changes to the roads over time has diminished the significance of these categories. There are now single-number roads that are unpaved dead-ends and fractional roads that are multi-lane "stroads" through urbanized areas. So, I think it would make sense not to include the HARP (900s) roads on Wikipedia, but I see the single-number and fractional county routes as inseparable for understanding a county's road system. If you're going to pick and choose beyond simply removing HARP roads, I say it would be better to only include roads with some particular significance (such as being part of a historic turnpike for example) rather than include a whole category that is less significant as a whole than it seems at face value. MrGPS (talk) 18:46, 13 November 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 00:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of highways in Atascosa County, Texas[edit]

List of highways in Atascosa County, Texas (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)

Also:

List of highways in Brewster County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Chambers County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Cherokee County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Culberson County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in El Paso County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Gregg County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Hardin County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Harris County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Henderson County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Hudspeth County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Jeff Davis County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Jefferson County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Lavaca County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Liberty County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Montgomery County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Orange County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Pecos County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Presidio County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Reeves County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in San Jacinto County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Smith County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Tarrant County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Terrell County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Travis County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Waller County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Washington County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Webb County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highways in Williamson County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Better handled by a category rather than a list. The content duplicates what is in each article listed as well as the Major highways section in articles like Atascosa County, Texas. Rschen7754 01:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all— per nom, these are better as categories, and may be better as simple lists in a section of their respective county articles. As a historical note, such by-county lists were created in some other states as the core article for featured topics, but such topics have been long deprecated in favor of other organization schemes. Imzadi 1979 → 05:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - per nom. Categories and sections listing highways in the county articles handle the need better. Dough4872 11:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. --Kinu t/c 23:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. For those routes with standalone articles, categorization can handle this better, and a listing of major routes (e.g., Interstate, U.S., and state) in a county can be mentioned at the respective county article's Transportation section. --Kinu t/c 23:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Fails WP:LISTN. LibStar (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. SounderBruce 21:43, 17 November 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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. The arguments to keep are numerically predominant but substantively weaker on policy. NFOOTY and FPL are not valid reasons to keep any more; sources that contribute to SIGCOV were mostly not mentioned explicitly; and at least one source so mentioned was convincingly rebutted. The discussion has gotten unpleasant, and with so many arguments not based in policy, I believe we are better served by restarting it. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aria Barzegar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Aria Barzegar (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)

While he barely would qualify under the now deprecated WP:NFOOTY, he does not qualify under WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 01:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

more ref: 1, 2, skysport, ESPN, eurosport, 3, 4, 5. news1, news2. news3, news4, news in persian and other links (in eng, russian, kazakh, persian lang) and refs on article. all links are wp:RS and used (sites and publishers) in many articles in english wikipedia.--Miha2020 (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an additional personal attack, please refrain from doing so in the future. Could get you into trouble. And just fyi, when an article is sent to AfD by an NPPer, it is automatically marked reviewed. As has been explained to you now several times, NFOOTY, which you quoted as the reason for your first removal of a notability tag, has been deprecated. Onel5969 TT me 01:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know how he is barely known as notable sport person when he was member of one of elite club in Iran(Persepolis) and even win league title with them, play in pro league right now and more important play as starting lineup 2 days ago For national team against Nicaragua! I think sources are reliable enough. Shahin (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but just. Many of the sources presented above are databases, but there is some decent coverage, and it is verified that he made his international debut for Iran last night. This means there will only be more coverage in the near future. I am comfortable he is notable. GiantSnowman 08:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep International Iranian player now, from the cites posted here and on the the article looks more than enough to satisfy GNG. Also Onel5969 I don't see a personal attack there, and your response was a highly aggressive reply, you should be careful of flying boomerangs. Govvy (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Not a single one of the above mentioned sources or the ones in the article is significant coverage, only database sites, match reports and trivial mentions. WP:NSPORTS makes it very clear that all sport subjects must pass GNG regardless of professional or national team appearances. Any non-policy !votes stating that the article must be kept becouse of those appearances should thus be ignored by the closing admin. Alvaldi (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I'm finding a decent amount of coverage, some of which (e.g. this, maybe this) is probably SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant amount of coverage, passes notability requirements.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week delete - None of the sources included in the article or noted by Miha2020 count at all towards the GNG (they are trivial). BeanieFan11 found two articles that could count towards it, but I'm unclear about the source of that information (it could be scraped from databases or the Wikipedia article based on how it's written). I'm pretty sure Titrebartar is an online magazine that is a reliable source, but less sure about Arga-Mag. Overall, I think this is just a case of WP:TOOSOON as much of the coverage shows that this player never made it as Persepolis and only made a handful of appearances with a Belarussian club prior to being handed an international debut in a friendly. Jogurney (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jogurney many refs are in article from sites, news agency that don't relate to database! databases show importance of player in football sites. toosoon??(in first AFD it was true). what is your idea about these: Julien Duranville, Jahzara Claxton, Zach Abbott, Facundo Núñez, Anders Noshe Syver Aas, Matías Abaldo, Raki Aouani , what is difference between these articles (with no tags in them!) and above article? some of them are 16 years old or 18! Even my article is better in many ways. (i can point more than 500 pages that are weaker than aria barzegar). creators of them have Autopatrolled access, but i don't have! previously soccerway.com was enough for footballers pages. we can't wait footballers become 23-24 and then create their aticles! Miha2020 (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted elsewhere, every footballer that has a soccerway.com profile is not notable under WP:SPORTBASIC. Several months ago, WP:NSPORTS2022 made it clear that NFOOTBALL was no longer to be relied upon. I agree with you that there are hundreds (likely thousands) of other footballer biographies that fail SPORTBASIC. The solution is not create dozens more, but rather to improve those articles or remove them from Wikipedia if they cannot be improved to the SPORTBASIC standard. Why can't we wait until footballers are 23 years old to create a biography if that's how long it takes for reliable sources to cover them in a significant, in-depth manner? However, it is my experience that plenty of younger footballers receive significant coverage well before they become 23. Jogurney (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    for example you nominated Klajdi Dule (why this one only?) but can we nominate 80% of Category:Men's association football players by position? of course not! we have about 178000 footballers pages in english wikipedia ! Miha2020 (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't nominate Klajdi Dule for deletion, but I did !vote in that AfD to delete the article. I've nominated many footballer articles for deletion over the years, and voted in many other AfDs (see this). Yes, there are many footballer articles that need improving and many that cannot be improved enough to meet our notability standards. Jogurney (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (EC). None of the sources above contribute to GNG, which is required for sportspeople. Jogurney is correct in guessing the Arga-Mag source is just facts scraped from the web; they have hundreds of these "biographies" (see the one on Taylor Lautner) derived from news aggregators and other wikis. Not RS. The Titrebartar source has a lot of sentences repeating the same routine non-encyclopedic information (about him being benched) and then a similar wiki-like "biography", so this shouldn't count toward GNG either. The rest of the references are trivial mentions and stats, which are not and never have been sufficient for NSPORT. Most of the keep !voters here seem either unaware of WP:NSPORTS2022 or belong to a cohort of editors who actively refuse to acknowledge the global consensus at every footballer AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: we can't have one policy and Double standard for similar articles. Who determines whether articles resources are sufficient or not for passing wp:GNG? (My speech is general). for this article we have refs from Varzesh 3, Tasnim News Agency, Hamshahri, Fars News Agency and many others that are wp:RS--Miha2020 (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of other poorly-sourced stubs on non-notable athletes does not mean the community has decided they should be standalone articles, it just means they haven't been evaluated yet. And it doesn't matter that a subject is covered by RS; what is important is that those RS provide significant, independent, secondary coverage. Standard transactional reports (signings, contract changes, coaching hires, etc.) are routine (see WP:NOTNEWS), are generally derived straight from press releases (not independent), and the info they contain generally does not amount to SIGCOV anyway, and thus they do not count towards GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no that's not right. what do you want from footballer? what should they do? or what should footballer do to be notable? don't point unrelated WP. It takes hours and a lot of energy to create an article, but commenting for deletion is always easy. i saw you just created 1 article for many years (that was on 2010). that's not good news. Miha2020 (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"That's not right"? How can you claim to know what the notability standards are for footballers when you've only participated in 7 AfDs?
The NSPORTS2022 RfC was very clear that at least one source of SIGCOV in SIRS be cited in the article for it be in mainspace, even when notability isn't challenged. The consensus across hundreds of footballer AfDs has been that ROUTINE coverage, as described in NBASIC and NOTNEWS, does not count towards GNG. And there is nothing a footballer can "do" to be notable--the presumption of GNG from playing in pro leagues was also eliminated in the RfC, although NSPORT has always required demonstration of GNG eventually--the only thing that confers notability is multiple pieces of SIGCOV in SIRS. Voria Ghafouri, for example, has received plenty of coverage for both his football achievements and for his protests against Iran's misogynist stadium policies. JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i have created 55 (non-deleted) articles in 2 years but you only 1 in 15 years! Otherwise, participation in AfDs does not bring experience! that's different between us, i am not only fluent in wp:football but also in wp:NSPORT. Do not make the discussion personal. we have wp:N for each field (every one must pass his/her field only) so for footballers like aria barzegar that played in 2 professional leagues and 3 tournament 2018 AFC U-16 Championship squads and 2019 Granatkin Memorial and CAFA Junior Championship and also in junior,cadet, youth and senior for Iran national football team. that's enough. your today's edit in Voria Ghafouri can't effect on his notability. he has spoke about those issues you said are in last 4-5 years but his article created in 2010 but These are the margins of football, not the original! i can point many sites that has Barzegar's bio on their pages but wikipedia is not Yellow magazine! Miha2020 (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He played in fully professional leagues and also played one match for the national team of his country, that's notable enough. Sports2021 (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sports2021, that is an invalid argument as we have explicitly deprecated all participation-based criteria for athlete notability and added the requirement that at least one source of SIRS SIGCOV must be cited in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Have found plenty of coverage... a few sources are questionable but I think it easily has enough to meet WP:GNG JojoMN1987 (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which coverage did you find? JoelleJay (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not impose your opinion on others. you said your cm and wait for admin. What insistence do you have to challenge the opinion of others? (Because it is against your opinion?) Miha2020 (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is asking for a link to coverage someone said exists "imposing my opinion on others"? JoelleJay (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    i mean all of your contributions here. Do not make the discussion busy and long. Let the admins decide for the conclusion. please don't reply anymore. Miha2020 (talk) 17:54, 19 November 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! 02:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marisa Petroro[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Marisa Petroro (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 of any notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV & WP:NACTOR. AmirŞah 00:51, 12 November 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! 02:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MCS Group[edit]

MCS Group (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)

Conglomerate doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:45, 12 November 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_November_12&oldid=1123283129"