Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 27 November 29 >

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 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! 03:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Winters[edit]

David J. Winters (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 investor, insufficient sigcov provided to establish notability. Jdcooper (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Business Week and the International Herald Tribune source seems to be significant and not a passing mention. I think this is a borderline case. RoostTC(Please ping me) 01:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Roostery123 both of those links are dead. Where did you find the articles please? Can you link me? MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[1] and [2]

@MaxnaCarta Here you go RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 05:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Roost The first one is definitely about him. The IHT one is a discussion that he took place in, so it's not a secondary source. Is the Barron's really only two lines, or am I not able to see the rest? Lamona (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I not convinced he is notable. There is lots of primary coverage him talking, but its all passing mentions. I've not seen WP:THREE WP:SECONDARY sources that prove he is notable. Lots of these references seems to be dead and WP:BEFORE doesn't turn up much either. I do know his fund is closed. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 08:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reckless Behavior: Caught on Tape[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage after multiple searches including on Newspapers.com. SL93 (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFILM. I too could fine no reviews or other sources with significant coverage. I did find one book on cyber bullying where the film was briefly discussed, but it wasn't in-depth enough to count as significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus was stronger for some articles in this batch nomination than others, but on the whole it lent towards keep or redirect and I'm not going to attempt to unpick each one individually. – Joe (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe Place station[edit]

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

Minor closed railroad stations without indication of notability. I cannot find any significant coverage of any of them, nor is it likely to exist: none survived into the public ownership era (with attendant coverage in government documents), none have surviving station building, and none are proposed for reopening. The only sources in the articles are fan sites and trivial mentions. For all, I would support keeping redirects to the relevant rail lines. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bartlett and Fireplace stations as those seem to be the most notable based on the current sources i do believe that it is possible to find information about the other stations as well so if the article creator is reading you can stop this afd by doing so NotOrrio (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis
  • Canoe Place:
    • Fan site with a total of 17 words about the station. Not significant coverage, and questionable reliability.
  • Bartlett's:
    • Same fan site with one paragraph. Maybe significant coverage, still questionable reliability.
    • Dead link to a different fan site with one sentence, that contradicts the sentence cited to it in the article. Not significant coverage, and questionable reliability.
    • 1852 book that - again contrary to the article - does not actually mention the station
    • 1852 timetable that shows the station. Reliable, but not significant coverage.
    • Dead link to an 1873 map that shows the station. Reliable, but not significant coverage.
    • Mention of a collection of notes. Not verifiable without additional citation details.
    • Dead link to Wikimapia, which is user-generated and thus not a reliable source.
  • Fire Place:
    • Advertisement of opening. Reliable, not really significant coverage.
    • Timetable that doesn't show the station. Reliable, but obviously not significant coverage.
    • First fan site again, saying it "may be one and the same" as another stations
    • Another timetable that doesn't show the station
  • Miller Place:
    • NYT article that does not mention the station. Reliable, but not significant coverage.
    • External links include some fan sites with a few sentences each. Maybe significant coverage, still questionable reliability.
  • Promised Land:
    • First fan site again. Maybe significant coverage, still questionable reliability.
  • Rocky Point:
    • Newspaper article that does not mention the station. Reliable, but not significant coverage.
    • 1895 timetable that shows the station. Reliable, but not significant coverage.
    • NYT article that does not mention the station. Reliable, but not significant coverage.
    • Newspaper article that does not mention the station. Reliable, but not significant coverage.
How are these not notable? Those fan sites include images of public sources. I strongly disagree with moving to redirect or deleting them. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of them have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, as is required by WP:NOTABILITY. See the list I made above. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. I've not done a detailed look for sources but if these can be expanded they should be kept, if they can't they should be merged and redirected. There is basically never a case for deletion of railway stations that verifiably exist or existed as at the very least they will always merit a redirect to a list entry. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Miller Place station and Rocky Point station; redirect Bartlett's station and Fire Place station to Ronkonkoma Branch; redirect Promised Land station and Canoe Place station (I might have to further research the latter) to Montauk Branch. (At the very least, do not delete any.) For the two Port Jefferson Branch stations, I found some significant coverage in this book (a whole chapter dedicated to the Wading River extension), and the stations appear to have been active long enough that additional coverage (including of their closure) is likely to exist. The other three were active for a much shorter period and I could not find comparable significant coverage. Moreover, there are a number of shuttered LIRR stations fitting the nominator's statement, but are not all on equal footing with each other; this AfD is already potentially a WP:TRAINWRECK, so I would propose creating separate AfDs in each case if this is a widespread content issue. Complex/Rational 14:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Searching inside that book shows that both Rocky Point and Miller Place only have about 3 sentences each. Potentially useful if other sources are available, but not significant coverage on its own. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the two Port Jeff Branch stations, no comment on the others. Although there may not be coverage in sources just yet, the Wading River Branch has been discussed for restoration and reopening by local residents and politicians from time to time; the most recent conservations focused on a proposed seasonal service during the summer months only to relive chronic congestion on NY 25A. No idea if it will ever happen, but there is at least a possible future for these stations. The others I have a feeling are probably long forgotten about at this point, but I don't know if there might be notable history for them, even if it is from the PRR days. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A theoretical possible future does not confer notability if there aren't sources that actually provide significant coverage - that's precisely why WP:CRYSTALBALL exists. There is little if any actual coverage of a restoration in reliable sources, and essentially nothing that discusses Rocky Point or Miller Place in that context. What currently available reliable sources provide significant coverage for these stations? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Canoe Place station, Miller Place station and Rocky Point station. Merge and redirect the stations to the articles about their respective LIRR lines. Merge the other stations to the articles about their respective LIRR lines. Namely,  redirect Bartlett's station and Fire Place station to Ronkonkoma Branch; and redirect Promised Land station to Montauk Branch. The two stations on the Port Jefferson Branch may be notable as part of the Wading River Extension, as ComplexRational mentions above, so I'm not 100% sure about these. Even if these two stations don't have their own articles, they could be mentioned in the Port Jeff Branch article. But I don't think any of these articles should be deleted either. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited my !vote. My original !vote is here. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to their respective lines. There's not much to justify their retention as standalone articles. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Canoe Place station, Miller Place station and Rocky Point station. I researched these stations and found additional sources not listed in the source analysis above and incorporated the material into the associated articles. The Canoe Place station appears to have had a much higher ridership compared to other minor LIRR stations and flag stops given the popularity of the Fisherman's Special trains. The Miller Place station played an important role in the development of the town as a resort destination in the early 20th century. There are current plans to renovate the former station house at Rocky Point into a VFW museum as part of a senior housing development. No comment on the other stations. Transpoman (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Canoe Place station, Miller Place station and Rocky Point station per WP:HEY. No opinion on the others.4meter4 (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Women's U21 European Volleyball Championship squads[edit]

2022 Women's U21 European Volleyball Championship squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. A list of mostly non-notable players. LibStar (talk) 23:03, 28 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. A possible rename can be discussed on the article talk page since there is no consensus here on the subject. Editors are encouraged to expand this article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seneca mythology[edit]

Seneca mythology (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 basically a list article, of which most entries don’t have articles of their own, that lacks content, reliable sources, apparently is an orphan except links only by template:religious topics. Any real material here should probably be merged into Iroquois mythology, but there isn't much. Peter Flass (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 28. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fine by me, since it's insulting to call Native religions "mythology" and usually any concrete information is only meant for community members, not the general public. Yuchitown (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    Does that also apply to Greek mythology, Roman mythology, Norse mythology, Celtic mythology, etc, etc? Or are you saying it only applies where religions have not generally been superseded by Christianity or another major religion? They are no more nor less mythology. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The question how to properly phrase this notwithstanding, looking into the linked Google/Scholar/Books searches, there seem to be enough secondary sources to expand this very basic article into full-fledged one. Daranios (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For now, why not just add a "religion" section to the Seneca people article? If it ever grew to a point that it needed its own article, then that would be easy enough to do. Yuchitown (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    The current article is not exactly long. So if we do not go below the information we have now (I am assuming in good faith that it's correct), then I am also fine with a merge and redirect to Seneca people as suggested. Daranios (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename it to something like (List of) Seneca deities etc.  oncamera  (talk page) 23:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not sure “deities” would be the correct term.Peter Flass (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly a notable topic, although it needs rewriting. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Iroquois mythology is a much more developed artivle, and there is considerable overlap.Peter Flass (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject heading, "Seneca mythology" (and there are other related terms but this one is dead on) brings up 7 books in the Library of Congress catalog, such as:
    • McElwain, Thomas. Mythological tales and the Allegany Seneca : a study of the socio-religious context of traditional oral phenomena in an Iroquois community / by Thomas McElwain. Stockholm : Almqvists & Wiksell International, [1978]
    • Curtin, Jeremiah, 1835-1906, comp. Seneca Indian myths, collected by Jeremiah Curtin. New York, E.P. Dutton & Company [c1923]
    So I'm pretty sure that this stub can be expanded with substantial sources. Lamona (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a stub, but the topic seems notable. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:B11F:818B:48F1:A0FD (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Preachers of L.A.. Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Haizlip[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jay Haizlip (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)

Delete: no more notable than previous AFD. Google search indicates subject is of questionably borderline notability, if at all. MurrayGreshler (talk) 22:08, 28 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 12:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Laperi[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable basketballer. Was a member of the championship team of the Albanian 2nd tier league, but this does not confer notability itself. A WP:BEFORE search, including a search on newspapers.com, revealed literally nothing except some stats, so he appears to fail WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 21 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! 21:26, 28 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 12:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CNPTV[edit]

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

I cannot find any sources to establish a GNG pass. Non-notable tv channel. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 21 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! 21:26, 28 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. WaggersTALK 16:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Shale[edit]

Kerry Shale (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)

Throughout the entire history of this article, it has been filled with a ton of unreferenced information. The only two existing citations prove the actor's appearances in a few of the works stated in the article. Also considering this is a BLP, it's time to blow it up and start over. DatGuyTalkContribs 16:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Some more reviews that specifically discuss his writing and/or acting found on Nexis: "Listen, We're Family", The Observer, November 7th 2013; "The 2000 Year Old Man", The Evening Standard, March 13th 2015; "The Kubrick Test offers a first-hand account of the director's working methods", The New Statesman, April 1st 2020. He's been a very prolific actor in the UK for 30+ years - particularly on BBC radio and audiobooks - so I imagine there's probably more like this buried in the hundreds of passing mentions of things he's been in! Adam Sampson (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be at GNG with the source listed in the last two comments; I'd encourage the editors to work them into the article and expand it. Good work everyone. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG with references provided above (international coverage none the less!) Nfitz (talk) 20:56, 29 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! 05:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

African Honey Bee (organization)[edit]

African Honey Bee (organization) (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 company does not have enough press coverage to deserve Wikipedia article. I do not think random "micro-beekeeping business" deserves a Wikipedia page. This is not an important or noteworthy company and its reach is small. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 19:40, 21 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! 21:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete feels promotional, I only find thing about the bees themselves, nothing for this organization. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 29 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! 23:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lund Airport[edit]

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

WP:NBUILD. ICAO and Swedish AIS charts for the airport no longer exist, zero mentions from news articles of the airport in either English or Swedish, only sources of information for the airport are self-published sources (see, for example, this swedish blog or this flight simulator site). Fermiboson (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is actually quite a few articles about the airport when looking at Swedish news. A w:sv:Mediearkivet search for "Hasslanda flygfält" or "Hasslanda flygplats" turns up a long row of articles, typically around 500 words, focused on Hasslanda Airport, even though coverage is limited to more recent articles. I'd imagine a search at tidningar.kb.se, the newspaper archives at the Royal Library of Sweden, would turn up (or hint at: it's difficult to access) more, but they seem to be having technical difficulties right now. I'll check back later. /Julle (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Admittedly not a clear-cut keep with fantastic refs, but the article is no longer unsourced; someone with proper access to the newspaper archives of the Swedish Royal Library should hopefully be able to add more. /Julle (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Not the best article on the encyclopedia but seeing it has a good number of references (for a stub), it should not be deleted.
Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 15:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - now meets WP:GNG. Hopefully will be expanded over time. - Ahunt (talk) 16:10, 29 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goldberg Segalla[edit]

Goldberg Segalla (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)

Reads like G11 promotion of the firm. I almost speedy-deleted it right there, but given the history and the fact that it was at one point accepted through the AFC process, I figured I would go through the AFD process instead. The sources seem to be largely press releases, the sources from the Buffalo News come up as 404 when I tried them just now. @Robert McClenon:, how different is the current status of the article from when you accepted a couple years ago? Bkissin (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this isn't Linked in, I don't need a list of every office you have. There are no articles discussing the firm, beyond confirming they exist. Routine law firm from what I see. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as written. I would actually expect a firm this size and with this breadth to have coverage showing notability, but keeping this in the encyclopedia as is would be detrimental to the credibility of the project. Current sources are excessively local or not independent. BD2412 T 21:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as written. This article is entirely the work of single-purpose editors and has a smell of UPE. I think I made a mistake seven years ago. It has been expanded since I accepted it, but the expansion has been the addition of corporate stuff and of puffery. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 29 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! 18:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Money[edit]

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

I think that this company's Wikipedia page should be deleted. I was trying to read through the references to get more information on this company and to improve the article, but most of the references either talk about a book, are the website of this non-profit, or are some other website that isn't a newspaper. There is one newspaper that talks about this company (the Wall Street Journal) that's in the references. The Slow Money company's reach is small and it doesn't get a lot of newspapers writing about the company, even if I google the company. I don't believe this company is important enough to be on Wikipedia. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:57, 21 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! 18:24, 28 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! 18:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iran–South Korea football rivalry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A quick before shows the article is riddled with unreliable sources, and primary sources. The article literally has only five sources, the first one is dead (teammelli.com), the second one is a random totally unreliable website (taegukwarriors.com), the third source is a 2013 archive of FIFA itself, the fourth source (CNN) and fifth source (espn.in) doesn't talk about any rivalry between Iran and South Korea. Google results showed up routine coverage from a few sports sites. If anyone can uncover some significant, and or in-depth coverage to satisfy GNG, I would be happy to withdraw. TatesTopG (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2022

  • Comment - probably delete The article title is completely miss-leading, this is just a head to head stats page. WP:NOSTATS apply. Govvy (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NRIVALRY.LibStar (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable rivalry, only source in the article that uses the term is a primary source [3]. Fails WP:NRIVALRY, and is just a head-to-head stats lists, which isn't needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NRIVALRY. This reads more as a list of results between the two national teams, but also fails WP:NLIST. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Adding these kinds of "rivalries" to Wikipedia would litter it with content that belongs more in a forum. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a rivalry, certainly not notable. GiantSnowman 19:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero background information according to what, who and why is this match a rivalry, its a made-up "rivalry" just because they played a couple of important matches in the past; the article is also basically just a list of head-to-head matches and nothing else, thus failing both WP:NSTATS and WP:NRIVALRY. Its true that the FIFA source (#3 in the article) calls it "the two sides have developed one of Asia's greatest rivalries", but its based solely on many matches played. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable subject Bruxton (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ‘’’Delete’’’ topic lacks both notability and sources. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:B11F:818B:48F1:A0FD (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 18:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of reflexes (by organ)[edit]

List of reflexes (by organ) (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)

Long-stalled list meant to serve as an alternative for a list that's already pretty navigable, on an axis that isn't that useful. Suggest either deleting or redirecting to Template:Reflex, which does essentially the same thing but better. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Lists. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m not sure what niche this page is meant to fit into, also, it would be a huge complex page with foreseeable arguments on what counts as a “reflex”? TheMouseMen (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sorting by part of the nervous system or type of reflex (as in the aforementioned template) seems more sensible. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with Draken Browser and Tamzin Dronebogus (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't fundamentally a terrible idea, but as noted it's hopelessly incomplete (the only organ included is "Eye", and that has been the case since the article's creation in 2008). I don't think redirecting to Template:Reflex is appropriate because that template is not really organized by organ. It is also not entirely clear what "by organ" means—all reflexes have two components after all: a sensory/stimulus/input component and a motor/response/output component. If we want a list of reflexes "by organ", I think the best way to do that would be to use a table with different columns for the two components, and I think the best place to do that would be at list of reflexes, which could be converted to that format. TompaDompa (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is content fork of pages reflexes and List of reflexes, not a legitimate standalone list. My very best wishes (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just a mess of unsourced, unlinked and trivial junk. I think I sense SNOW, folks. Should we have an article called "list of words in Indonesian" or "list of languages of the European Union"? Or a list of communes in France? It is getting absurd to this list. CPORfan (talk), 02:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the list appears to get uber-specific. As the nominator points out we already have a useful list on the subject. Bruxton (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted per A7. (non-admin closure) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TToMoon[edit]

TToMoon (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 establishment of notability with WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 17:53, 28 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 speedy keep. Speedy Keep given the nominator is a sockpuppet and there is no support for Delete. Liz Read! Talk! 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Houghton[edit]

Jeremy Houghton (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 subject of this BLP does not meet notability guidelines. After searching in good faith, was not able to find sufficient independent sources establishing notability. AmeliaWillems (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Arts, and England. Engr. Smitty Werben 17:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be notable to me. Search Google I find he was Official Artist for the 2012 Olympics, Official Wimbledon Artist, Artist in Residence for Goodwood, Artist in Residence for Northampton Saints. Some sources: BBC Northampton Saints appoint first artist in residence; Tatler Renowned artist Jeremy Houghton is creating a unique and exclusive body of work to celebrate the Jubilee; County and Town House Wimbledon Insider: Jeremy Houghton, Championship Artist; Goodwood A year in the life of Goodwood's Artist in Residence Piecesofuk (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If all of the above claims were correct, I would be open to entertaining a position that the subject is notable. However, it is verifiable by a simple Google search that there was no "Official Artist of the 2012 Olympics". There was an official poster artist, and there were 12 official artists who created additional official posters, but Jeremy Houghton was not one of them. The only claims that this artist was the "Official Artist for the 2012 Olympics" come from the artist himself. While it is verifiable that this artist was an Artist in Residence at Goodwood, I would argue that being an artist in residence at a private commercial event venue that is not significant in any way in the art world does not confer any notability to an artist. Similarly, being an artist in residence for a rugby team (Northampton Saints) does not confer notability.
    Additionally, the articles linked to above do not in my opinion meet Wikipedia's guidelines for independent sources and non-promotion. The first link (Northampton Saints appoint first artist in residence) directly quotes an official press release issued by the artist and the rugby team (Northampton Saints appoint first artist in residence). The remaining three sources linked to are PR interviews with the artist himself.
    Ultimately, I think the question of notability here comes down to whether being an artist in residence for a couple non-significant entities like a rugby team (Northampton Saints) and a commercial event venue (Goodwood House) establishes the level of notability required for an article. AmeliaWillems (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Excuse me AmeliaWillems, I may be reading the pages wrong, but it appears that the only article you have touched on WP is this one, and all 5 of those edits are related to AfD on this article. Am I missing something? Is there something we should know? Lamona (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledge that I am a new editor and recognize that edits from new editors should be examined with extra scrutiny. I have no conflict of interest. I made the jump to become an editor after happening across this page and being surprised that a page that was such blatant self-promotion existed on WP. Just as my edits as a new editor should be examined with scrutiny, it should also be examined with scrutiny that the original creator of this page, and primary contributor, has only ever contributed to one page (this one) in their eight years as a Wikipedia contributor, and has made over 50 edits all with the clear intention of promoting the subject of the article. AmeliaWillems (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has a number of problems and the un-cited information needs to be removed, ditto the copy of the painting. I also note the un-acknowledged COI on User_talk:Simone_Hancox, although the COI seems pretty obvious. There are at least two reliable sources: The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian. Other sources may support some of the information here, but cleanup is needed. Lamona (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Fleming Bruce[edit]

Catherine Fleming Bruce (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 writer and political candidate, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing either WP:AUTHOR or WP:NPOL. As always, unelected candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se -- the notability bar for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while a non-winning candidate gets to have an article only if either (a) she can demonstrate that she already had preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy, or (b) she can mount a credible claim that her candidacy was a special case of significantly greater notability than most other people's candidacies.
But this demonstrates neither of those things: her prior work as a writer and historical preservationist is referenced solely to a podcast and a primary source, which do not establish the encyclopedic notability of that work, and the election campaign is referenced solely to the purely expected volume of run of the mill campaign coverage that every candidate in any election can always show, which does not establish a reason why her candidacy would be of more enduring significance than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, and South Carolina. Bearcat (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She doesn't meet POL and I can't find anything for AUTHOR. Appears to have been used to bolster her campaign, which I think she lost.Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the article was created 5 days after the general election, and the creator is an established editor, doubt to the 2nd sentence. Please WP:AGF. Curbon7 (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these notes - did manage to find additional sources, which I was unable to do for some of the other former candidate pages I created! The sources suggest that the book received significant critical attention. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess changes to the article since the AFD nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see reliable sources publishing about her and the argument to keep is well articulated above. CT55555(talk) 15:48, 29 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. Legoktm (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brigette Peterson[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, not adequately sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. While her city is large and significant enough that a mayor would get to keep an article that was substantive and well-sourced, mayors don't get an automatic notability freebie just for existing per se -- the notability bar for a mayor is not passed by writing "Brigette Peterson is a mayor who exists, the end", it's passed by writing and sourcing a substantive article about the political significance of her mayoralty: specific things she did in the mayor's chair, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with a lot more knowledge about Arizona politics than I've got can improve it to the necessary standard -- but she isn't automatically entitled to have an article just because she exists, if what's already here now is all the effort anybody can actually be bothered to put into it. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Gilbert AZ is a sizable city, not a town — but even mayors of cities, even very big cities, still have to be shown to pass WP:NPOL #2 on substance and sourcing, and still aren't given "inherent" notability freebies for articles that are this minimalistically written and sourced. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gilbert has a population of 260,000, larger than many cities as noted by nom. Notability is based on coverage. There is a minor mention in A Tennessee newspaper and many more in other states which shows some non-local coverage. More sigcov includes another source with statewide coverage of the First Amendment issue, and this bio in a Boston-area newspaper. There is lots of statewide coverage in The Arizona Republic such as this. I think this is just barely enough to establish notability and enough to develop an acceptable article. MB 14:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Gilbert is a sizeable town, it is in fact the biggest "town" in the United States in regards to population. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The size of Gilbert has nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for mayors. It's whether the mayor can be shown to get over WP:GNG on her sourceability or not that determines whether a mayor is notable or not, and the population of the place she was mayor of has nothing to do with anything. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, Bearcat, but frequently in AFD discussions about mayors or lists of mayors, the size of the town or city gets mentioned as a factor in determining significance. Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. – Joe (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North Wales TV[edit]

North Wales TV (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 is almost entirely about predecessor television organisations in the area. Company is an ultra-local TV broadcaster, the only news coverage seems to be about it's criticism, prior to its launch, of not making programmes in Wales. I can't see any other reliable journalistic coverage of "North Wales TV" (the phrase is occasionally used for articles about TV made in North Wales). Time for it to go, unless someone knows something I don't. Sionk (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Wales. Sionk (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see no reason to delete this article. It has many independent references and whilst it is a local broadcaster there is no reason to remove this article for that reason.Rillington (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my nomination, almost all the article and independent references are not about North Wales TV. Sionk (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:24, 28 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! 06:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Shapiro (musician)[edit]

Harvey Shapiro (musician) (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)

Highly respected, but not high-profile cellist. The sources are lacking for WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A Google search turns up an article on Interlude HK and another on The Plain Dealer about how he gifted his cello to Daniel Müller-Schott. Not able to look up myself at the moment, but am confident that more may turn up in an archival newspaper search. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the above sources, would appear to just past GNG. I can't find anything for him however. Oaktree b (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As suspected, ample testimony to Shapiro's notability turns up in archival sources. He was the winner of a Naumberg Prize, which alone ought to secure this article's place based on WP:ANYBIO. Shapiro's professional debut was also covered by none other than Winthrop Sargeant. A selection of some articles about Shapiro follows: [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. I will try to add these and expand the article later this week (unless somebody else beats me to it). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as newspaper articles that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 28 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. Given the lack of comment after 2 relists and that it's ineligible for soft deletion, I'm closing this as no consensus. Legoktm (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gwaun Troed-rhiw-seiri a Llyn Mynydd-gorddu[edit]

Gwaun Troed-rhiw-seiri a Llyn Mynydd-gorddu (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)

PROD removed but no indication of notability. This is listed as a site of special scientific interest and is also listed on our List of SSSIs in Ceredigion and discussed on Trefeurig where it is explained it is an SSSI because the marshy grassland there is considered rare. But that is all that distinguishes it and there is no significant coverage of the issue (and over 12% of land in Wales is listed as an SSSI). This fails WP:GEOLAND on every category and particularly because it does not name one place but two. Gwaun Troed-rhiw-seiri is a moorland area (Gwaun is moorland) and Llyn Mynydd-gorddu is an upland lake (technically just a pond) (Llyn being a lake). The only named feature on the Ordinance Survey maps is Mynydd Gorddu itself, which is a 300 metre high hill that now sports a windfarm. There is not sufficient information available to construct an article in its own right and it is not notable for an an article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It only has around 290 Google hits but the Welsh Wikipedia article does have more information but the reference is dead. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Welsh Wikipedia seems to have referred to the original SSSI listing which included a survey of plant species and varieties found at the site. As you say, the link has gone away because CCW was subsumed into Natural Resources Wales (NRW), who presumably have this information somewhere but don't seem to have published it. Even if we had it, what we have is a list of plants found at two related sites, but not uniquely there. What we don't have is any secondary treatment of the SSSI at all. Being an SSSI you might think that there were scientists studying it, but if so, they don't seem to have published anything. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:18, 28 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. – Joe (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 Toros Neza season[edit]

1994–95 Toros Neza 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)

Season-article without any sources for the season itself The Banner talk 19:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 5 sources: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] (season itself subsection Matches), the first two regards the ban of Neza 86 stadium how the franchise changed its name for the 1994-95 season recovering its original denomination Toros Neza. The link number 3 is regarding to the coach, it is clearly how the link states he managed the team during the 1994-95 season. The reference 4 is a link of the goalkeeper, it was a player transferred in for the 1994-95 season. The reference number 6 is about Centre back defender Luis Carlos Perea it is clear how it states he played for the club during the 1994-95 season. Reference number 6 is linked to the 1994-95 Mexico season with RSSSF page, the structure of the article consisted of information about these tables (group and overall), matches, and goalscorers round by round. The link is a reference for the 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season. Reference number 7 is linked to the squad statistics created on the article and states clearly the players of the team for the 1994-95 season. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - these kind of articles are notable, and this one possibly is, but I cannot see any significant coverage. If sources are found ping me. GiantSnowman 18:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've showed and explained the sources one by one, the references are journals, TV stations, the structure of the article, the links and now they created a new term: "coverage", maybe tomorrow they will create another one to delete the article. My article was reviewed and approved now is censored with new terms. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me Mister user:Onel5969 Hello Sir, I'm created The article 1994-95 Toros Neza season and you reviewed during autumn, now the article is nominated to be deleted even it is properly sourced with 7 references. Can you post that the article is not unsourced?. Thank you. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article was reviewed by user:Onel5969 and includes 7 references/sources/links. The Competitions section links two tables to 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season the subsection results by round or position by round is properly sourced and linked to https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html same applies to subsection Matches. It is not copyviolation due to it does not exist a similar page on RSSSF, there is a Overall page including 259 teams and hundreds of matches. However my article contains only the matches for the club in question and I did not copy from that site and paste over here, I use the info even it is clear is not the same. Also, that information is available on the Wikipedia Spanish version of 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So now you are adding RSSSF everywhere. You know that page is copyright protected? The Banner talk 17:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
False. RSSSF states: "You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the authors. All rights reserved." Acknowledgements properly included. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 17:32, 6 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! 21:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted AfD per DRV
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't see how any of the sources provide in-depth analysis of Toros Neza for this season, which is what GNG would require. The only one that helps build the article is RSSSF but that's just pure results listings and doesn't contain any meaningful prose. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm watching Nederland crushing the "U.S. masculine team soccer" 3-1 with my friends Nfitz (talk · contribs) and comments arouse about why U.S. and Nederland did not want to play in Russia 2018, They were really scared about Putin. Articles that pass NSEASONS (which is a guideline) should provide reliable sources to meet GNG; but unlike athletes, it's not like they must. As it does pass an SNG it doesn't need to meet GNG explicitly - at least not immediately. But I don't know why anyone would think that seasons articles for teams in the best league in North America in a football-mad country wouldn't meet GNG. Looks like that many rank this league 9th in the world currently, compared to 15th for MLS. There's no doubt that the calibre of teams in this league is higher than MLS. And yet we seasons articles for all but two of the 1996 MLS teams (the first year of MLS). The main sourcing issue is access to media from Mexico in the pre-Internet age over 30 years ago. If this was a lower-ranked league like the 1994-95 First Division with teams like 1994–95 Reading F.C. season and 1994–95 Sheffield United F.C. season, we wouldn't be having this discussion - there are 22 seasons articles for the First Division that season. 187.156.98.86 (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources lack the quality or quantity to justify this page. How many of these pages are these? Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As Fram (talk · contribs) wrote "Which is not an Afd reason, and needs perhaps some indication of where the text is copied from? Otherwise you are accusing an editor without any evidence, which isn´t a good look..." 2806:108E:24:B52A:1C07:1F23:7285:39BC (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't think there's much of an argument that the closes violated settled procedure; plainly they didn't. But I think we can agree now that they were bad outcomes, and that this nomination was very likely just as tainted and pointy as the other similar AfD cases The Banner filed, all of which have closed (or will soon do) as overwhelming Keeps. We have two choices here: to do the right thing and restore the articles -- not simply relist the AfDs -- or just wash our hands of The Banner's now-obvious bad faith and worse judgment (and for which he's about to be community tbanned from the AfD process generally). That the community needs to do a better job at AfD has been manifest for years now, and that's a problem beyond the scope of this DRV. Correcting this error is within our grasp, and it should be done without further delay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:108E:24:B52A:D1E:13B8:E16F:4B0E (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Concern: The unsigned keep !vote is suspicious-looking given that (1) one user has tried to cast multiple !votes, (2) the unsigned user has responded to this entire set of AfDs, and (3) the unsigned user has nothing else in their contribution history. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind that the bastard is doing so with my words, which were cut-and-pasted from the DRV that relisted this AfD. Ravenswing 00:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Inomyabcs (talk · contribs) wrote to Ravenswing: "I want to thank you for keeping an open mind and doing due diligence... with Hugo. I also went back and looked at the AfDs and I believe Hugo had a point. I added my review of the AfDs for the ones that are still open and was able to locate sources to satisfy the main complaint in three of them; [2] , [3], and [4]. I really do hope that your admonishment gets through to some of the editors there. To lose an editor (201-articles-Hugo) that was trying to operate in good faith and with a wealth of edits is a real shame." 2806:108E:24:B52A:1C07:1F23:7285:39BC (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And (4) I just saw the one who'd tried to cast multiple votes has been blocked. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 Tigres UANL season[edit]

1994–95 Tigres UANL 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)

Season-article without any sources for the season itself The Banner talk 09:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Mister user:JTtheOG Hello Sir, I'm created The article 1994-95 Tigres UANL season and you reviewed during autumn, now The Banner and his friends wants to delete the article even it is properly sourced. Can you post that the article is not unsourced?. Thank you. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Mister The Banner, regards the matches, positions by round subsection, results by round subsection the source came from RSSSF https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html it is the same used by 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season and it is detailed by the Spanish version of that article, then I structured the matches section based on that info. The source it is included now. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article was reviewed by user:JTtheOG and includes 7 references/sources/links: [14], [15], [16] [17], [18], [19]. The Competitions section links two tables to 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season the subsection results by round or position by round is properly sourced and linked to https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html same applies to subsection Matches. It is not copyviolation due to it does not exist a similar page on RSSSF, there is a Overall page including 259 teams and hundreds of matches. However my article contains only the matches for the club in question and I did not copy from that site and paste over here, I use the info even it is clear is not the same. Also, that information is available on the Wikipedia Spanish version of 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season and RSSSF states: "You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the authors. All rights reserved." Acknowledgements properly included. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does. The structure of the article only follows the RSSSF.com reference https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html said that, The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the performance of Tigres UANL round by round, plus the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF reference mentioned above including goalscorers game by game. In an aggregate for this article in Statistics the reference Source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it clearly showed the performance of players during the 94/95 season. In an aggregate I included the worsening of situation for universities during that season an interview from ESPN " Mexican Secretariat of Public Education in 1994 announces that Universities' budget must not be spent on professional football teams https://www.espn.com.mx/noticias/nota/_/id/2101545/padilla-admite-error-al-vender-leones-en-1994-hoy-vale-413-mdp the reference is also included in the articles for other universities football franchises of that year. The description is clear and include how the budget reduction affected the team in that year. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does. The structure of the article only follows the RSSSF.com reference https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html said that, The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the performance of Tigres UANL round by round, plus the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF reference mentioned above including goalscorers game by game. In an aggregate for this article in Statistics the reference Source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it clearly showed the performance of players during the 94/95 season. In an aggregate I included the worsening of situation for universities during that season an interview from ESPN " Mexican Secretariat of Public Education in 1994 announces that Universities' budget must not be spent on professional football teams https://www.espn.com.mx/noticias/nota/_/id/2101545/padilla-admite-error-al-vender-leones-en-1994-hoy-vale-413-mdp the reference is also included in the articles for other universities football franchises of that year. The description is clear and include how the budget reduction affected the team in that year. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does.The structure of the article only follows the RSSSF.com reference https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html said that, The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the performance of Tigres UANL round by round, plus the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF reference mentioned above including goalscorers game by game. In an aggregate for this article in Statistics the reference Source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it clearly showed the performance of players during the 94/95 season. In an aggregate I included the worsening of situation for universities during that season an interview from ESPN " Mexican Secretariat of Public Education in 1994 announces that Universities' budget must not be spent on professional football teams https://www.espn.com.mx/noticias/nota/_/id/2101545/padilla-admite-error-al-vender-leones-en-1994-hoy-vale-413-mdp the reference is also included in the articles for other universities football franchises of that year. The description is clear and include how the budget reduction affected the team in that year. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to repeat yourself three times when protecting your own article. The Banner talk 17:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reference number 1 contains a link to an article where as clearly states about the 1994-95 season even the testimony of the second on board of University' Dean.References 3,4,5 clearly contains the two players being part of the team over the 1994-95 season, also the manager. RSSSF Reference number 6 is used to structure the article, including two tables linked to 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season and the Matches round by round, also the link is useful to create the crutial postion by round table. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - these kind of articles are notable, and this one possibly is, but I cannot see any significant coverage. If sources are found ping me. GiantSnowman 18:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've showed and explained the sources one by one, the references are journals, TV stations, the structure of the article, the links and now they created a new term: "coverage", maybe tomorrow they will create another one to delete the article. My article was reviewed and approved now is censored with new terms. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted AfD per DRV
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet again, sources lack the quality or quantity to justify this page. The sheer number of these pages demonstrates that this is too specific and obscure. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm watching Nederland crushing the "U.S. masculine team soccer" 3-1 with my friends Nfitz (talk · contribs) and comments arouse about why U.S. and Nederland did not want to play in Russia 2018, They were really scared about Putin. Articles that pass NSEASONS (which is a guideline) should provide reliable sources to meet GNG; but unlike athletes, it's not like they must. As it does pass an SNG it doesn't need to meet GNG explicitly - at least not immediately. But I don't know why anyone would think that seasons articles for teams in the best league in North America in a football-mad country wouldn't meet GNG. Looks like that many rank this league 9th in the world currently, compared to 15th for MLS. There's no doubt that the calibre of teams in this league is higher than MLS. And yet we seasons articles for all but two of the 1996 MLS teams (the first year of MLS). The main sourcing issue is access to media from Mexico in the pre-Internet age over 30 years ago. If this was a lower-ranked league like the 1994-95 First Division with teams like 1994–95 Reading F.C. season and 1994–95 Sheffield United F.C. season, we wouldn't be having this discussion - there are 22 seasons articles for the First Division that season. 187.156.98.86 (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't think there's much of an argument that the closes violated settled procedure; plainly they didn't. But I think we can agree now that they were bad outcomes, and that this nomination was very likely just as tainted and pointy as the other similar AfD cases The Banner filed, all of which have closed (or will soon do) as overwhelming Keeps. We have two choices here: to do the right thing and restore the articles -- not simply relist the AfDs -- or just wash our hands of The Banner's now-obvious bad faith and worse judgment (and for which he's about to be community tbanned from the AfD process generally). That the community needs to do a better job at AfD has been manifest for years now, and that's a problem beyond the scope of this DRV. Correcting this error is within our grasp, and it should be done without further delay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:108E:24:B52A:D1E:13B8:E16F:4B0E (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Concern: The unsigned keep !vote is suspicious-looking given that (1) one user has tried to cast multiple !votes, (2) the unsigned user has responded to this entire set of AfDs, and (3) the unsigned user has nothing else in their contribution history. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind that the bastard is doing so with my words, which were cut-and-pasted from the DRV that relisted this AfD. Ravenswing 00:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Inomyabcs (talk · contribs) wrote to Ravenswing: "I want to thank you for keeping an open mind and doing due diligence... with Hugo. I also went back and looked at the AfDs and I believe Hugo had a point. I added my review of the AfDs for the ones that are still open and was able to locate sources to satisfy the main complaint in three of them; [2] , [3], and [4]. I really do hope that your admonishment gets through to some of the editors there. To lose an editor (201-articles-Hugo) that was trying to operate in good faith and with a wealth of edits is a real shame." 2806:108E:24:B52A:1C07:1F23:7285:39BC (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And (4) I just saw the one who'd tried to cast multiple votes has been blocked indefinitely for abusively using multiple accounts. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Legoktm (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Brammen[edit]

Jonas Brammen (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)

Created for 45 minutes of pro-level play in 2016. Best I could find is this (paywalled) interview, rest are match reports in the local press. Fails GNG. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question @Doctor Duh: And you don't think the German wiki article de:Jonas Brammen passes GNG either? Govvy (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Govvy - heh, that's certainly something I'll remember to check next time, looks like he received more attention in the very early stages of his career. But I think the argument for deletion still doesn't fall apart from this; I see only the first two cites on the de.wiki article (1, 2) as plausibly contributing to a claim to notability, but the first one is just a short interview and they're both filed under "Lokalsport", which I don't think I need to translate. We'll see how this plays out with additional community input, but I promise to be more inquisitive in the future... Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Govvy. I found [20], [21], [22], [23], among many many more German sources from nw.de, rp-online.de, westfalen-blatt.de, owl-journal.de, sport1.de, radioguetersloh.de, wn.de, welt.de. kicker.de etc. Player with ongoing career and experience in the fully professional German second and third tiers. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above references provided, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 19:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. All I could find were interviews, match reports and brief mentions that don't go to passing GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:13, 28 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. – Joe (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 Club Puebla season[edit]

1994–95 Club Puebla 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)

Season-article without any sources for the season itself The Banner talk 09:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 09:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does. The references for the article are linked to the season, 1.2. Tita in fact played for Puebla for only one season, in the link they talked about him playing for Puebla. 3. The reference showed how Pablo Larios left Puebla in 1994 and was transferred out to Toros Neza. 5.The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Puebla, the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF.com the same reference and the season 94/95. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does.The references for the article are linked to the season, 1.2. Tita in fact played for Puebla for only one season, in the link they talked about him playing for Puebla. 3. The reference showed how Pablo Larios left Puebla in 1994 and was transferred out to Toros Neza. 5.The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Puebla, the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF.com the same reference and the season 94/95. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does.The references for the article are linked to the season, 1.2. Tita in fact played for Puebla for only one season, in the link they talked about him playing for Puebla. 3. The reference showed how Pablo Larios left Puebla in 1994 and was transferred out to Toros Neza. 5.The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Puebla, the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF.com the same reference and the season 94/95. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - these kind of articles are notable, and this one possibly is, but I cannot see any significant coverage. If sources are found ping me. GiantSnowman 18:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've showed and explained the sources one by one, the references are journals, TV stations, the structure of the article, the links and now they created a new term: "coverage", maybe tomorrow they will create another one to delete the article. My article was reviewed and approved now is censored with new terms. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me Mister user:Onel5969 Hello Sir, I'm created The article 1994-95 Club Puebla season and you reviewed during autumn, now The Banner and his friends wants to delete the article even it is properly sourced. Can you post that the article is not unsourced?. Thank you. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'll let others decide the notability of this particular article, but articles like these are routinely kept. I'm not sure what the nom is saying about "without any sources for the season itself". This is the source for the long results table, another link, this, is now not working, but was the source for the two smaller tables above the large one. The article does need more sourcing, and I should have tagged it so. The squad, transfers, and several points in the summary all need refs. I would suggest draftifying would be in order to allow HugoAcosta9 to fix the issues. I would suggest draftifying all 3 of these articles.Onel5969 TT me 21:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the time of nomination, at least all the matches were unsourced. Effectively copyvio, as RSSSF is copyright protected. Adding those sources later, is whitewashing copyvio. The Banner talk 08:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -The squad and transfers subsection was from http://puebla80s.blogspot.com/2014/12/equipo-puebla-1994-95.html it is a fan blog of course I've checked the info reviewing all the wikipedia pages of the players and it is accurate but I did not include as a reference due to wikipedia rules. Therefore if wikipedia players pages, in English and Spanish showed the info I can use it. Thanks Mister Onel5969 for the reviews. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -The article was reviewed by user:Onel5969 and includes 7 references/sources/links: [24],[25], [26], [27], RSSSF. The Competitions section links two tables to 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season the subsection results by round or position by round is properly sourced and linked to https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html same applies to subsection Matches. It is not copyviolation due to it does not exist a similar page on RSSSF, there is a Overall page including 259 teams and hundreds of matches. However my article contains only the matches for the club in question and I did not copy from that site and paste over here, I use the info even it is clear is not the same. Also, that information is available on the Wikipedia Spanish version of 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season and RSSSF states: "You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the authors. All rights reserved." Acknowledgements properly included.. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @HugoAcosta9: Can you stop ruining the look of the page? This is another suggestion that you lack experience to contribute to Wikipedia! Sakiv (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HugoAcosta9, you can't vote multiple times on any AFD discussion. You can comment but you can only write "Keep" or "Delete" one time. Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted AfD per DRV
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of significant coverage. Yes, there is some coverage but not of the quality or quantity to justify this overly specified page. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm watching Nederland crushing the "U.S. masculine team soccer" 3-1 with my friends Nfitz (talk · contribs) and comments arouse about why U.S. and Nederland did not want to play in Russia 2018, They were really scared about Putin. Articles that pass NSEASONS (which is a guideline) should provide reliable sources to meet GNG; but unlike athletes, it's not like they must. As it does pass an SNG it doesn't need to meet GNG explicitly - at least not immediately. But I don't know why anyone would think that seasons articles for teams in the best league in North America in a football-mad country wouldn't meet GNG. Looks like that many rank this league 9th in the world currently, compared to 15th for MLS. There's no doubt that the calibre of teams in this league is higher than MLS. And yet we seasons articles for all but two of the 1996 MLS teams (the first year of MLS). The main sourcing issue is access to media from Mexico in the pre-Internet age over 30 years ago. If this was a lower-ranked league like the 1994-95 First Division with teams like 1994–95 Reading F.C. season and 1994–95 Sheffield United F.C. season, we wouldn't be having this discussion - there are 22 seasons articles for the First Division that season. 187.156.98.86 (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't think there's much of an argument that the closes violated settled procedure; plainly they didn't. But I think we can agree now that they were bad outcomes, and that this nomination was very likely just as tainted and pointy as the other similar AfD cases The Banner filed, all of which have closed (or will soon do) as overwhelming Keeps. We have two choices here: to do the right thing and restore the articles -- not simply relist the AfDs -- or just wash our hands of The Banner's now-obvious bad faith and worse judgment (and for which he's about to be community tbanned from the AfD process generally). That the community needs to do a better job at AfD has been manifest for years now, and that's a problem beyond the scope of this DRV. Correcting this error is within our grasp, and it should be done without further delay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:108E:24:B52A:D1E:13B8:E16F:4B0E (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Concern: The unsigned keep !vote is suspicious-looking given that (1) one user has tried to cast multiple !votes, (2) the unsigned user has responded to this entire set of AfDs, and (3) the unsigned user has nothing else in their contribution history. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind that the bastard is doing so with my words, which were cut-and-pasted from the DRV that relisted this AfD. Ravenswing 00:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Inomyabcs (talk · contribs) wrote to Ravenswing: "I want to thank you for keeping an open mind and doing due diligence... with Hugo. I also went back and looked at the AfDs and I believe Hugo had a point. I added my review of the AfDs for the ones that are still open and was able to locate sources to satisfy the main complaint in three of them; [2] , [3], and [4]. I really do hope that your admonishment gets through to some of the editors there. To lose an editor (201-articles-Hugo) that was trying to operate in good faith and with a wealth of edits is a real shame." 2806:108E:24:B52A:1C07:1F23:7285:39BC (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And (4) I just saw the one who'd tried to cast multiple votes has been blocked. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional games of the United States[edit]

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

WP:OR mixed list of commercial games, worldwide games, sports, ... which happen to also be played in the US (just like 100s of other games). No idea why some games from the sources were included and some excluded, just reinforces the randomness of the list. Fram (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some information on the traditional games of the United States is better than none, and the article can always be expanded upon by interested editors. GreekApple123 (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Random info with a very unclear selection process is not better than no information at all, no. The inclusion or exclusion criteria for this list seems to be completely arbitrary (if Twister, then why not Monopoly, ...? if lacrosse, then why no baseball?) and would result in a quasi endless list of everything played in the US "traditionally" (when does traditionally start? Invented/played before X?) Just throwing together some information and claiming it is about "the traditional games of the United States" is not how articles should be made. Fram (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I normally like navigational list articles, but I'm not sure this one is recoverable. If there were some good sources that discussed this specific topic, I'd lean toward keep pretty quickly. But as it is, I'm not sure how we'd pick what goes here and what doesn't. That's usually a bad sign for a list article. Hobit (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Traditional board games perhaps, this is just anything and everything moooshed together. There is no discussion beyond simply listing them and one line about each game. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this is a random list with an especially unclear selection criteria failing WP:LISTN. VickKiang (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hobit's views mirror my own. It would be nice for something to be here, but with unclear inclusion criteria, it's not clear how to save this. Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is a list which does not meet the WP:LSC guideline. Bruxton (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzad Dana[edit]

Shahzad Dana (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)

Refs are blogs, PR and WP:SPS sources. Not independently notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 15:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked for refs Shahzad Dana and his company and I'm coming up empty on both for WP:RS. Delete as non notable. Knitsey (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not close to being notable. --Mvqr (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sign of notability. Every single source is a content scraper, a blog, or otherwise unreliable. --bonadea contributions talk 19:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity spam, I don't see anything about this fellow, and the picture is an odd floating head. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Engineering. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunate what he's going through, but as of yet, doesn't meet notability Nswix (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Naumov (logician)[edit]

Pavel Naumov (logician) (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)

Logician fails WP:NBIO with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, unlike the athlete with the same name. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:11, 28 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 14:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post.news[edit]

Post.news (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)

startup. fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 14:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No real reason to believe that this start up will be notable. Needs sustained coverage by reliable sources. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the CEO of Waze for 12 years, from soon after its founding through its acquisition by Google, Post.news founder Noam Bardin has a great deal of credibility as a startup executive.
Although Mastodon is getting more buzz as a replacement for Twitter, a lot of journalists are switching to Post instead, on grounds that the decentralized nature of Mastodon makes it complicated, and likely to remain more a hobbyist site.
Additionally, I think a wait-and-see approach to its success is more appropriate than a deletion.
— Steve98052 (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's currently redlinked. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too soon, next to no coverage in reliable sources. This outfit was founded two weeks ago, wikipedia isn't here to list every new startup. We aren't here to park your article to wait and see, you're notable, or you're not. This isn't linked in. Oaktree b (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Websites, and Washington. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice against possible recreation if the relevant standard is eventually met. We're not a directory of products still in beta. XOR'easter (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:TOOSOON. It does not seem to pass WP:NCORP yet. MarioGom (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete TOOSOON, and the whole point of this is promotional. Suggest SNOW deleting this, as it is borderline A7 and not inappropriate enough in tone for G11, IMHO. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice against re-creation if coverage of the subject eventually satisfies WP:GNG and/or WP:NCORP. It presently fails those standards. Sal2100 (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough at this time. Accesscrawl (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Talk about anticipating the "next big thing". Still in a closed beta, still waiting lists for signup, still waiting for in-depth significant sourcing. HighKing++ 15:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:TOOSOON. Being created by someone who founded a notable company does not automatically make everything done by that person notable. It may become notable, it may not. But right now, notability has not been established for this article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 14:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Centipede (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Centipede (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)

Non notable film, appears to fail requirements in WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability since August 2021

The result of the first discussion was "no consensus", and the notability tag remains. I am not a fan of that tag, I think that either the article should be improved to the extent that the tag can be removed, or the article should be deleted if notability cannot be proven.

Can we come to a consensus this time? Notable (keep article) or non-notable (delete article). I vote Delete DonaldD23 talk to me 14:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Iran. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sixth highest grossing film in Iran would seem to be all we need. There are next to no sources in Iran that we can access. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Or no English ones, they all look the same in Gtranlate to me, so I can't tell what a RS is. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many reviews listed here but I'm not familiar with the reliability of Iranian sources. Here is a translation of one of them here which seems to be a full review, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be ample sourcing Garuda3 (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NFILM Bruxton (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 13:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eye of Harmony[edit]

Eye of Harmony (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)

Niche element of Doctor Who franchise. Our article is pure plot summary with a tiny unreferenced attempt at analysis ("Scientific context"). Practically unreferenced - one footnote is a note, the other links to a BBC plot summary, and there is an EL to a fan wiki. My BEFORE revealed just a few passing mentions in some plot summaries. WP:GNG fail. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and United Kingdom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cannot be redirected to a specific episode of the series, due to its many appearances. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. There aren't third-party sources with significant coverage for this element. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although 2-3 times the Eye of Harmony has been an important plot in Doctor Who stories, it is not something that has ever attracted much coverage or recognition beyond the series. Indeed even within the series what it was and what it did was not that consistent and most of the development of it has come in expanded media or fan works. As such I don't think it merits its own Wikipedia article. If a redirect was being looked for Rassilon might be an option since in its first television appearance -The Deadly Assassin - it is closely associated with him and is mentioned in his article. Alternately, the Time Lord article's section on technology mentions it so that might be a good option as well. Dunarc (talk) 23:54, 29 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iran v United States (2022 FIFA World Cup)[edit]

Iran v United States (2022 FIFA World Cup) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crazy WP:CRYSTALBALL that this match will be notable. Everything else is WP:ROUTINE. We don't highlight every football matches, only those with a legacy, such as finals of major competitions, or freak scorelines. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Selective merge to 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B#Iran vs United States. This reads like a news/opinion piece and most of it is about the 1998 game, but some info like the bruhaha about the flag on Twitter and the match security can be mentioned in the section on the group article (which now just consists of two short sentences), along with a match report when the game actually happens. Not seeing much evidence of the in-depth coverage required to justify a standalone article at the moment. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge Does not warrant an own article. If something happens, that deserves an article, it will be done but not now. Kante4 (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do we really need a redirect for every World Cup match? Just delete it. Nfitz (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete routine group stage match with no major storylines (like there may have been in the 1998 match). I oppose a merge/redirect because "Iran v United States (2022 FIFA World Cup)" is an unlikely search term. People looking for the match would be more likely to go to the World Cup page (or Group B page) to find the match report there. Frank Anchor 17:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everything about this doesn't deal with the not-yet-played match or its players and should be a sub-paragraph in section 12 of Iran–United States relations. Maybe...wait for the actual game to play out before creating an article? Nate • (chatter) 17:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Qatar. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold This is a valid draft towards a match to be played in under 24 hours, has no one consider a merge with United States v Iran (1998 FIFA World Cup) ? Also, this is down to the outcome of the result, and what political, social echoes come from the match. Those delete votes really need to look at the bigger picture and not just the game. A different rivalry article could be constructed with the two matches now. Govvy (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm asking for a deletion of everything not to do with the actual 22 men on the field playing the game; if something really does happen tomorrow that's on par with the 1972 Olympic Men's Basketball Final, then yes, article justified and some of this belongs there for sure. But the thing the title described actually has to happen first. Nate • (chatter) 00:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before creating this article, I thought of continuing the 1998 article. But it can be only if the 1998 page is moved. Maxaxa (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But, like why create an article about a match that isn't yet notable? If it ends up a 9-0 win today, it'd likely warrant its own article. If not, it simply isn't notable enough. I'm not entirely convinced the 98 match is independently notable from the tournament either. There might be scope for a mention more in the US-Iran relations article as these articles have very little to do with football and what actually happens. We should be trying to expand our existing articles, such as the Group B article with a match summary before splitting into individual articles (especially over something that is yet to happen). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to redirect an “unexceptional” match to the Group Stage article unless that is done for all matches played (which would be a ridiculous waste of time). A straight delete is the better option. Frank Anchor 01:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the match was unexceptional, and any controversy leading up to the match can be covered in 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B or Iran–United States relations. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The match itself lacks the notability to be an article. As others have pointed out, the controversy surrounding it can be covered in other sections, not an article. Ardije (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Specific group matches generally aren't notable, even though the World Cup may be. The match itself isn't especially noteworthy, being a 0–1 win for the U.S., and is sufficiently covered in 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B#Iran 0–1 United States. As Vilenski says above, the match might've been notable if it were a 0–9 win, but nothing of the sort happened.
    Most of the information in this article is only tangentially related to the match, which depending on one's viewpoint violates WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE, and/or WP:NOTNEWS. The reason I'm !voting "delete" rather than "redirect" is that, if you take out the irrelevant information in question, there is literally nothing worth merging. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not Merge to United States v Iran (1998 FIFA World Cup). Not notable for a standalone article. Rylesbourne (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now the game has been played, which now has a result, I would say the only routine thing is the football, the other political backdrop behind the game does seem to be covered in other articles. I see no need to merge content over. Govvy (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean because the US won the article must be deleted and the 1998 article must be kept because Iran won? Maxaxa (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the Legacy section (along with a lot more of the article) is incredibly POV. It looks very likely to be deleted from the above, but I am worried about the amount of views for a current event written like this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I tried to clean up the article a bit, but this is very much smells of WP:RECENTISM to me. While there definitely were odd things surrounding this match that wouldn't have occurred had the two teams not been from countries with such a fraught relationship, there is not a whole lot suggesting this has long term notability. A more comprehensive rewrite is needed if kept. TartarTorte 14:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need for a redirect as an unlikely search term. Non-notable match. Any information regarding the lead-up or aftermath of the match is already present at 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B, and any additional prose can be added there. Jay eyem (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair play: Why all parts of the article indicating the notability of the match in world media are deleted? They were not sourced? The sources are not reliable?--Maxaxa (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's all WP:ROUTINE coverage. Articles are supposed to be independently notable from parent articles. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I am the vandal who created the article. Given the media attention the match attracted, works devoted to the match are forthcoming and they will make a separate article inevitable. Hurry up, time is running out. Love you, the world cup was more fun with you.--Maxaxa (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxaxax Why are you calling yourself a vandal? Also, the article doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't create an article for every match in the World Cup -- or in any other competition for that matter -- and there is nothing extraordinarily unique about this match that warrants an article either. The fact that some people chose to see (or seed) political overtones isn't a notable for an article. Mercy11 (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Renaissance (Beyoncé album). Randykitty (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heated (Beyoncé song)[edit]

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

Not a notable release, fails WP:NSONG . The only noteworthy thing here is the Controversy part, but all of that is already part of the album article. Sricsi (talk) 11:54, 28 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 FIFA World Cup riots[edit]

2022 FIFA World Cup riots (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 aren't a news ticker, riots happen every day, and this article suggests things happening at the event, rather than just because of it. The item is mentioned (briefly) on 2022 FIFA World Cup, so no merge is neccesary. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Belgium. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. One person injured and 11 people arrested is not going to generate enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Oppose a redirect since the name is misleading, it implies they were riots at the World Cup itself. If kept, should be moved to a more sensible name like 2022 Belgium and Netherlands riots. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another !vote for WP:NOTNEWS. Many, many football matches (both local and international) are followed by an amount of public disorder and unless this is ongoing / causes significant damage then no need for separate article on WP. Spike 'em (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a slippery slope argument which is a logical fallacy. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CPORfan (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What the heck are you on about? Did you just feel the need to argue with someone for the fun of it? Spike 'em (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree! Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with above, and ye, the title is really miss-leading. Govvy (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - passing mention on the main tournament article is more than sufficient -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and per WP:NOTNEWS. Frank Anchor 17:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'Dumb people burn things after football team loses in big tourney' is pretty much WP:MILL and expected. Nate • (chatter) 18:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with all of your opinions, as I'm the official uploader of this.PopularGames (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 😒 Then why create the article in the first place if you thought it would be deleted?! I'd love to place the db-author up so we don't have to burn seven days on this, but hopefully someone with a second opinion thinks the same thing. Nate • (chatter) 20:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DB-G7 does not apply, as there have been multiple authors who have made substantial contributions. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS. It's too bad this can't be early-closed as no CSD criteria apply. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This stuff happens all of the time and it's not worth making a full article about, as there's also probably not much information. If we had articles for each of these there'd be a new article every day about England and Mexico fans going wild Tumford14 (talk) 8:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. ronintalk 08:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably leaning towards delete. I've done a little to try and improve the page (the previous title was problematic) but I don't think there is much more to add, notability-wise. Buttons0603 (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing notable.Muur (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a riot at the World Cup, not notable. GiantSnowman 19:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poor sourcing, arbitrary selection as far as I know. A random and very, very odd thing. But delete it anyway. CPORfan (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article violates WP:NOTNEWS. According to the article itself, at least one person got injured and 11 people got arrested. This is called a protest, and it happens quite often when a team loses a football match. I don't see any evidence that this protest will have a long-lasting impact. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too early to think the event will have any significant impact or aftermath. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2022 World Cup. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Randykitty (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse Influencer Awards[edit]

Pulse Influencer Awards (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 award fails WP:GNG, if it is rebranded for the 2022 event, WP:NEVENT is likewise failed. This source is trivial and non-SIGCOV, being a routine announcement from a source that does not meet WP:RS with no editorial policies. Other refs are non-independent, my search found another routine announcement advertising the company (It informs and engages Africa’s young audience - and provides expansive media reach and creative marketing solutions to its partners. It is present with platforms & offices in Nigeria & Ghana in Anglophone W) and linking to the company, from Business Insider, only a marginally reliable source per WP:RSP. VickKiang (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't even see where they are from, giving a strong indication its an advert. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 14:04, 28 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. This is one of the weirder nominations (SNOW??) that I've seen. CPORfan, perhaps it would be better for you to direct your efforts to the Indonesian wiki, as it seems that your mastery of English is perhaps not sufficient to contribute here effectively. Randykitty (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-ly[edit]

-ly (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)

Delete due to WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The content is entirely unsourced and delete per WP:SNOW. CPORfan (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying in this comment nor why you are bringing up other totally unrelated AfDs nor why you are !voting in the AfD you have apparently nom-ed yourself. JMWt (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to me to be self-evidently notable in that there are good sources which discuss the topic in depth. Some that don't appear that be in the page include 1 and 2 and 3. JMWt (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is now have sources, we don't delete that, and it is very useful in this one. The article fulfils WP:NOTABLE, which all of them is good for me. This is one of the most famous articles that I edit, and this is not to be familiar to me. Might also be better to redirect to English adverbs. CPORfan (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can't nom, then !vote delete, keep and redirect. Which is it? JMWt (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I select redirect to English adverbs. CPORfan (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then strike your delete vote above and also this one. I also suggest you read about the alternatives to deletion. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will strike the delete comment. CPORfan (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article now has sources and notability is clearly established per WP:GNG. Additional sources found by JMWt look good and should be added. The article is long enough that it should be divided up into sections, but all of these fixes can be made in the normal course of editing. Having now read English adverbs, I think there could be more tie-in between the two pages, but the focus there is quite different (higher level analysis of the concept and lexical category, etc., vs. the lower level/usage-specific detail of this page), plus there are many elements of -ly that don't strictly fit into adverbs, so I would keep them separate. (May be worth considering renaming this article to "Suffix -ly" or something to make it easier to find, but again, that discussion can take place outside of AfD.) Cielquiparle (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The consensus here is clearly to Keep this article given the uncertainty that the editor who PROD'd the article actually spoke on behalf of the article subject. Should Mei-Ching Fok, or her representatives, wish for the article to be deleted, they can use the regular channels and this decision can be revisited. Liz Read! Talk! 08:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mei-Ching Fok[edit]

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

The article's subject is relatively unknown and a non-public figure. She has requested deletion of the article. We should accomodate the request per the relevant policy. -The Gnome (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The American Geophysical Union has, as of 2018, sixty-two thousand members from 137 countries. (They might be more by now.) Does each and every of these sixty-two thousand members deserve a Wikipedia biography simply on account of being a member of AGU? Should we not, in fact, require a bit more than that? Criterion #3 of WP:NPROF is not satisfied. -The Gnome (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From our article on the AGU: "AGU nominates members for fellowship in the society. According to the AGU website "To be elected a Fellow of AGU is a special tribute for those who have made exceptional scientific contributions to Earth and space sciences as valued by their peers and vetted by section and focus group committees." A maximum of 0.1% of the membership can be elected each year". Curbon7 (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mei Ching Hannah Fok appears to have over 20,000 citations in GScholar, I'd say she passes GNG with flying colors. And as stated above, she passes PROF. Personal preference aside, I think we should always keep articles that are notable, unless there is some legal requirement or strong reason not to, but that's not my call to make. Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your opinion, as above, about keeping articles on notable persons (the articles themselves are not notable) is of course fully respected, provided they are indeed notable per wikipedia's criteria. However, we cannot ignore the directions provided in the aforementioned policy. Verbatim: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. Emphasis added.
As to GScholar hits, let me comment with what I find to be a past essay's still valid admonition: "When performing a plain web search, it is possible that a lot of hits will turn up. ... Google Scholar [and other engines] provide results that are more likely to be reliable sources, but only if these hits are able to be verified and are reliable sources by reading the articles or books." Again, emphasis added. -The Gnome (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone with 20k citations is not "relatively unknown". Jahaza (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly read again the part, Jahaza, abt those hits not conferring notabilitty by themselves without specific, additional prerequisites. -The Gnome (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are not the same as search result hits though. I don't see where the 20k comes from in any case. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Gnome, WP:NPROF clause 1 is what's being invoked here I believe. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For reference to others, looks like that quote is from WP:GNUM. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the cited relevant policy of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE if there is confirmation that the subject requests deletion, e.g. by contacting Wikipedia. My search has found various primary sources related to her career, and nothing to indicate she is well-known or a public figure. Beccaynr (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC) -comment updated to unbold !vote and add text Beccaynr (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would perhaps help if we had more information about why the subject wishes her article to be removed. Depending on the problem, we might have other ways to fix it (e.g., page protection) which people who aren't deep into Wikipedia may be unfamiliar with. I recall !voting for deletion in roughly similar cases in the past, and so I don't want to rule it out as an option, but I'm reluctant to jump to conclusions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, where did she request deletion? Not at the thread linked in the OP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She certainly meets WP:PROF, as has already been noted, but I am confused about the statement of Fok not wanting a page as the note was added to the WP page by a user who has made six contributions to Wikipedia, and does not appear to be Fok. DaffodilOcean (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what appears to be a noncontroversial article about a notable person, but remind the editor who requested deletion about WP:AUTOPROB. We don't have any evidence that they speak on behalf of the subject. (Or has she contacted @Jesswade88: directly off-wiki?) PamD 08:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She has never contacted me off-wiki, I was just upset to see the requested deletion. Not sure what is best to do. Jesswade88 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep *Lean delete, comment Uncertain, need confirmation Do we know why she requested deletion? I don't like to assume, but in the context of a US based NASA scientist asking for us not to have an article where their family connections might be a matter of public record in today's geopolitical climate, I'm sensitive to the potential for there being a safety issue. She's relatively low profile. I think WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE CT55555(talk) 15:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep unless it can be proved that the subject has requested deletion. Clear pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
She has undeniably requested the deletion. See link. -The Gnome (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What link? The only clue so far is this, which does not provide an indication that the user is even the subject. Curbon7 (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree, unless you know more than us, @The Gnome I find "undeniable" to be overstating the situation as I read it. CT55555(talk) 18:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The person seems to meet WP:NPROF as stated above, and I am unconvinced by the legitimacy of the request if the only thing to point to is [30]. I would likely potentially change my !vote if it was verified that the subject actually requested it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To clarify why I said keep: Elected Fellow of the American Geophysical Union by itself would have been a keep from me in a regular AfD, multiple first author publications on Google Scholar with over 100 citations by itself would also have been a keep under WP:NPROF, without even having to consider WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ? Is this an attempt to unperson a scientist who has achieved success while working outside China? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Suggesting malicious intent by another editor constitutes harassment. You are expected to, at the very least, Xxanthippe, retract your abusive and insulting comment. And you're sincerely avised to refrain from such personal attacks in the future. The entire justification for this nomination is explicitly laid down in the text of the proposal and allows no misunderstanding. -The Gnome (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This doesn't seem like WP:HARASSMENT at all to me (it's not a pattern of repeated behaviour for one). I interpretted it as referring to Sp96296, who has given no justification, not the AfD itself. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That said, the use of unperson wasn't nice (IMO more ABF:ing than memory hole), whoever it was directed at. In newspeak wikispeak it could have been said something like "I'm not sure the PROD and/or afd was made in good faith." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two things that I am sure of is that WP:Before was not carried out thoroughly enough and that evidence that the subject herself requested deletion of the BLP is not established. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Very weak keep if the deletion request can be verified to be from the subject, otherwise keep. NPROF notability is very solid here, and this would be a speedy/snow keep in the absence of a possible request. It looks to me like the discussion should still end in keep, as being so notable as to be an essential subject for a wikipedia article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to notbaility and lack of evidence that the user requested deletion. Despite many requests, no evidence of this has been provided, I am not convinved she has requested deletion. The ambiguity about this is frustrating and I wish the nominator could make clear why they think the subject requested deletion. CT55555(talk) 03:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As I've outlined above, she is clearly notable, and there hasn't been a sufficient response in several days from the original claimant of the request. Curbon7 (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Sri Lankan cricketers[edit]

Lists of Sri Lankan cricketers (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)

Delete. Given the wide range of lists on the subject that are now available, this seems to be outdated and surplus to requirements, adding little value. It has been superseded by the relevant template now used by all SL cricket lists and, for navigation purposes, by the SL cricket categories. BcJvs UTC 09:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. BcJvs UTC 09:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have a navbox for this, so don't think a mainspace page is necessary. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost nothing in the list is bluelinked to an article that is actually relevant, besides various incorrect links. The category could probably be selectively merged or deleted as well for being underpopulated with actual articles. CPORfan (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Austin Brooks[edit]

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

No evidence of any actual notability: sources are all databases or primary sources, and Google News only returns press releases, no actual news reports about him. Fram (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Basketball, and Texas. Fram (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unfortunately either the subject or the paid contributor has engaged in extensive paid placement in fake SEO "newspapers" and in low-rent press release re-printers to promote a daycare business. I didn't see anything in earned media. This seems related to Draft:Little Butterflies, another paid editor, and more SEO spam. That leaves just a few casual statlines for some basketball gigs. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These SEO articles are a pain in the behind. We aren't here to help you promote your xyz thing. I don't see anything about this individual in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete the article cites reputable sources from well-known websites based on reliable, published sources. As contributor I declare that I got personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. User:Proeminente (talk) 08:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Proeminente Unfortunately the article doesn't cite sources of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All the sources in the article are either database sites or trivial mentions in minor articles. Alvaldi (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. The aforementioned database links, press releases, and trivial mentions are not evidence of notability. --Kinu t/c 06:37, 30 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 Hawthorn Football Club (AFL Women's). Randykitty (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawthorn best and fairest (AFL Women's)[edit]

Hawthorn best and fairest (AFL Women's) (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)

Lacks all notability, only mentioned in sources from the club itself and one short paragraph on a specialized website. Fram (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable. Ample sources for this new club. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hawkeye7: care to provide them? The AfD isn't even for a "club", but for a club award... Fram (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Merge into Hawthorn Football Club (AFL Women's). This award hasn't had enough substantial coverage to meet WP:GNG on its own. ProofRobust 09:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It's a common team award for a new team of an established club in the Women's league. Every team seems to have an article for an award like this, so this one will grow as the team plays more seasons. --Scott Davis Talk 12:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any policy based reason? Perhaps the others need deletion or redirecting if they are similar, perhaps they have better sourcing. It's hardly a reason to keep this one because there are other articles though. Fram (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyway, I just checked and redirected both Gold Coast Club Champion (AFL Women's) and North Melbourne best and fairest (AFL Women's) as neither had any independent sources. Fram (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Independent sources are for notability; an article should be sourced from authoritative sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, that's why I redirected it. I didn't claim the facts in the article were incorrect (= authoritative sources), I redirected it because neither had "independent" sources and thus didn't show any notability. Your input in this AfD is really not helpful. Fram (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Women's sports coverage is increasingly tough to find beyond team and league coverage as the print media implosion continues unabated, with list articles such as these an encyclopedic resource. Note: The redirects made above have been reversed with additional references located. Storm machine (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hawthorn Football Club (AFL Women's). As much as I want there to be equal coverage of men's and women's sport on Wikipedia, there just isn't the coverage for this article to pass WP:GNG right now. I think there's a good chance it will get that coverage with time, but we have to base a decision on the state of the coverage now not look at a hypothetical future. For now it's best to include the information at the club's article and then it can be restored as its own article once the coverage exists. OliveYouBean (talk) 04:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are currently four sources at the article – the club website, which has a degree of independence as the media is created by a media team rather than the club itself, and three independent sources (including an Irish newspaper). How many do you want? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 06:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)~[reply]
    You don't get "a degree of independence" by letting some agency write or maintain your club website, it still is a purely non-independent source. Similarly, the Womens AfL site is not independent either, the organiser of a competition reporting on the teams in that competition is by definition not independent. While the other two are independent, you have this which is a short paragrah in a longer list, and seems to be some citizen-produced website, not a professional journalistic source (the hosting is professional, but the contents are provided by whoever wishes to contribute); and this, which has one sentence about it. I realise that the sheer number of editors from the Australian Football project will probably lead to this being kept anyway, but the reasons provided are extremely dubious. Fram (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    afl.com.au and women.afl are independent sources; the content is produced by AFL Media, not the AFL itself. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And the inaugural award for most unconvincing argument goes to... Seriously? "AFL Media is an Australian sports media company operated by the Australian Football League" The official website of the WAFL is somehow an "independent source" because they have put the content creation in a subdivision housed in the same building as the AFL itself? Fram (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has enough significant sources, including a newspaper from Ireland (about an Australian local club award). How much more independent can you get? --SuperJew (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge would be my view. The article is a statement of the award's existence, with WP:ROUTINE sources only to state its sole winner - the routineness issue is more pressing than the independence issue for me. There's nothing I can find yet that would qualify as WP:SIGCOV for the award to be notable for a standalone article. (For award articles, my rule of thumb is that if the article doesn't stand alone as notable without its list of winners, then it's not notable enough for its own article.) Aspirex (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. Numerically, there are more editors advocating Keep but others suggest sources are not independent enough to count.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge either to Hawthorn Football Club (AFL Women's) or perhaps make an article on the concept of an AFL Women's club best and fairest and merge all non-notable AFLW best and fairest awards there. I disagree with Fram on the independence of AFL Media, but it's a moot point, its coverage is not significant enough anyway. I agree with some advocates to keep that the award will likely become notable in the future, but it is not notable at the moment. – Teratix ₵ 06:23, 29 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. The article was created by a user in violation of a previous block, and the article has no substantial edits from others. Mz7 (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ranglal Halder[edit]

Ranglal Halder (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)

President of state wing of an major party doesn't establish notability. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 08:42, 28 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. The article was created by a user in violation of a previous block, and the article has no substantial edits from others. Mz7 (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Chhettri[edit]

Gopal Chhettri (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)

President of state wing of an major party doesn't establish notability. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 08:42, 28 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! 06:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harmohinder Singh[edit]

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

Being President of state wing of any major party doesn't establish notability. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 08:36, 28 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. I think the consensus here is that this article should be Kept but also that major work is needed to improve the article. That can be done after this AFD closure through regular editing which I encourage those advocating Keep to dive into. Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ali in media and popular culture[edit]

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

Another mostly unreferenced violation of WP:IPC/MOS:POPCULTURE ("Sections with lists of miscellaneous information such as "trivia" sections should be avoided"), i.e. pretty random and mostly unreferenced list of media mentioning Muhammad Ali ex. "The band Fever 333 references Ali in one of their songs, titled "Burn It."" or "Pixar's Soul when 22 mentions that Ali was previously a mentor to her, with a flashback of him calling her a pain.", or random stuff like "The character of Killerbee/Kirabi from the manga and anime series Naruto seems loosely based on Muhammad Ali," - note lack of references, i,e, violation of WP:OR), and there is even stuff that's has pretty much zero reference to popculture, such as "organizations named after/dedicated to him" like "Muhammad Ali Parkinson Center at the Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, AZ—One of the world's largest dedicated Parkinson's Centers." This is the usuall mess, created in 2007 by moving trivia content from the main article io a subarticle, and it is unlikely it can be saved. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and United States of America. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While there is a lot of the kind of content which could be seen as being in violation of WP:IPC, there's a lot that isn't. This topic is notable in itself as it has plenty of in-depth, independent, and reliable coverage, such as articles on this topic specifically in multiple top tier international publications. Plenty of the information is referenced and free from WP:OR issues. It's unclear to me why exactly deletion would be a more appropriate course of action than improvement. Chagropango (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Move everything that is unsourced to the talk page for sourcing. There are certainly notably sourced instances. BD2412 T 17:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs to be cleaned up and have more citations added, but this is actually a useful article about a major historical figure.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a very good argument. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do not believe this is in line with WP:TRIVIA. -
    GizzyCatBella🍁 05:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How many are things that have links to their own articles? Is it enough to justify a list? Some major pruning may be in order. Dream Focus 12:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while the nom has demonstrated that much of the content may be inappropriate, there has been no serious argument that nothing about Ali from this is worth keeping or that no regular editing could fix this list. Thus, regular editing is preferable. Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean-up to start, and maybe rename. It's easy to see how major figures would have loads of books written about them. The right treatment for Ali may be similar to Bibliography of George Washington for example. Going too far with the scope allows people to insert all kinds of unreliable material and WP:TRIVIA and this article is suffering for that. Jontesta (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is valid supplementary list to page Muhammad Ali. Yes, such lists should be minimized or avoided in the main page about the subject, i.e. Muhammad Ali. This supplementary list allows doing just that. This is not just "trivia", but indeed a page about his appearance in media and popular culture, which is by itself a valid subject. Yes, the page probably needs a lot of fixes. My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ali's popularity and media presence are undeniable. Of course he's a major subject in many books. I would say this article certainly needs some cleaning-up and I would be inclined to get rid of anything that isn't directly linked to a source. There's already a section on this topic in the article on Ali, but I think putting all of this article's content into the main article would be too much clutter. For that reason, I'm not opposed to an article on this topic but it needs improvement--and some pruning of trivia. Papaursa (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Of course, pruning and clean up can occur before this discussion is closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 28 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! 06:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Callebaut[edit]

Jeff Callebaut (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 former footballer who made four appearances for KV Mechelen, but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage online (with this very short blurb the best I could find. PROD was removed without providing any indication that SPORTBASIC could be met.Jogurney (talk) 06:36, 28 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! 06:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Seung-min[edit]

Yu Seung-min (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 former footballer who made a single K League 1 appearance, but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage online (with blurbs like this in Jjan.kr the best I could find. PROD was removed without providing any indication that SPORTBASIC could be met. Jogurney (talk) 06:29, 28 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 07:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banc Llety-spence[edit]

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

This is a site of special scientific interest because there may be certain wildlife that uses the site, but this is not sufficient to be notable, and indeed there is almost no information available on it beyond the SSSI listing. The site is already listed on our List of SSSIs in Ceredigion. The name literally means "Spence Lodge bank". Llety-spence is a named site but the bank (presumably the river bank) is not. It is just a description used for the SSSI (these are usually fields or other geographic areas where there is interest). The site is not populated, and does not meet WP:GEOLAND under any category. There is not sufficient information available to construct an article, and the information is better treated on the SSSI page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:15, 14 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! 06:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Insufficient information available to draft an article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is difficult. On the one hand, there seem to be few or no sources that are available. If it is a site of special scientific interest, wouldn't we expect there to be published studies written about it? On the other hand, a site that has government/international designation for protection must have had reports and documents written about it to get the designation. I'm not sure how to resolve this with regard to WP policy. I've seen it said several times that there are more than 1,000 SSSIs in Wales covering 12% of the land area (not dug enough to see a source for this, it may be WP!). On that basis, we can't necessarily keep pages just because they are an SSSI, so sadly I'd say delete until or unless someone can find significant scientific studies about it. JMWt (talk) 06:59, 28 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! 05:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kinetic Void[edit]

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

I nominated this for deletion using the PROD process and was reverted. I'm taking this to AFD as the next logical step. My comment was: Non-notable game that does not have WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE shows one review in a situational source which does not meet the WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, game is dead, and left no lasting mark even in failure. I'm for deletion. BlockBadger42 (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sorry BlockBadger42 (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as long as no secondary sources are found. Daranios (talk) 15:46, 30 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. The major rewrite of the article and recent opinions offered since the additions give me assurance that deletion nomination concerns have been addressed. Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bat phone[edit]

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

I used the PROD process to propose this for deletion and it was reverted. I'm taking this to AFD as the next logical step. My PROD comment was: Several topics merged together as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. No independent reliable sources to provide WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Technology. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not impressed by the PROD summary used. If one doesn't have time to look for sources, we could consider redirecting or userfication, but the current article fails WP:GNG and arguably, WP:OR. It's a WP:TNTable mess, even if any sources are found (my BEFORE didn't yield anything useful). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is now a case of WP:HEY after the ongoing improvements by Cielquiparle: The term as used to describe real-world phenomena is clearly derived from the comics version, so I don't see a WP:SYNTH problem there. And despite statments to the contrary enough secondary sources have been found for a referenced non-stubby article. Daranios (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to hotline, which has a lot of shared info. The hotline article can mention how it is sometimes referred to as a "bat-phone" after the Batman creation. But, I feel like this article attempts to claim that all usages of a hotline emerged from the bat-phone, partially through SYNTH. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have taken care to only reference articles that have explicitly connected the term/concept "bat phone" to modern usage in other contexts, in order to avoid WP:SYNTH. The only source that does not specifically make the connection to "bat phone" is The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes (which I cited to get the most accurate detail about which issues of the original comics said what), but all the other sources covering the comics explicitly discuss the connection between the original Hot-Line in the comics and the "Bat phone" in the TV series. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Expansion still in progress.) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the claims that were made by @Daranios:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as all the unsourced passages and OR have now been deleted, and multiple reliable sources have been added to the expanded article for Bat phone, clearly establishing notability per WP:GNG. Although there is some historical overlap with hotline, in reading about this topic, it has become clear to me that "bat phone" and "hotline" are also distinct topics that should be addressed separately, as the cultural meanings for both have diverged quite a bit (the biggest difference being the "public" nature of "hotlines" today vs. the "private" nature of "bat phones"). Cielquiparle (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Character.ai[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:PROMOTION, possible WP:COI. Article reads excessively promotional and subject fails to meet criteria for notability as a company, and likely does not meet WP:GNG at all. Axiomofyourchoosing (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sources in the article meet WP:THREE, so it meets WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT just by what's in the article. Concerns of promotional tone are solved via editing and are not a reason for deletion. Similarly, an unsubstantiated claim of a "possible COI" is not a reason to delete an article, especially when that statement is made by a brand new account whose only edits have been to PROD and AfD this article. AfD is not a substitute for WP:COIN. It's certainly not a perfect article by any means, but the issues with the article can be solved via editing, as notability is not one of the problems. - Aoidh (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It meets WP:NCORP in that "it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" which is what WP:NCORP specifically looks for. "I'm not convinced" is not a rationale for deletion, how does it fail to meet that criteria? - Aoidh (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Sources in the article already make it meet WP:GNG. Importantly, coverage is significant and not trivial. I have also found significant coverage in numerous other reliable sources as well. As mentioned by Aoidh, the other issues can be fixed and are not a valid rationale for deletion. ProofRobust 22:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are not 3 sources in the article - #2 is a reprint of #1 and they should not both be listed. So there are 2 sources and only one is a description of the company. I don't find any other 3rd party sources. The article was created by a WP:SPA which makes me wonder about COI. The company is a start-up; if it makes it then there will be enough for notability, but not yet. Lamona (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The account who created this article has about 4 times as many edits as you do, on a wide variety of topics, mostly food and video game related going back to 2016. The article was not created by an SPA, and the only evidence of a COI is an unsubstantiated claim by a suspicious new account created specifically to nominate this article for deletion. As for the number of sources, here is a third source in Chinese; the article meets WP:GNG. Notability is there, the author is not a SPA, and the claim that there is a COI has zero evidence; there is no cause to delete the article. - Aoidh (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aoidh I apologize for mis-reading the edits as SPA - I did not read far enough. However, I still see this as an unproven startup, the articles are mainly about it as a startup, and it is currently in beta. Like SWinxy I think it is likely that there will not be sustained coverage. Unlike SWinxy, I consider that to be WP:TOOSOON. If this software does endure, an article can be done at a later time. Lamona (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being an "unproven startup" is not something that affects notability ("unproven" seems subjective). In fact WP:NCORP gives "a tech start-up in a major U.S. metropolitan area" as an example of something that would have more than one or two sources showing notability, and since that's all it says regarding startups I think it's fair to say there is no criteria that says startups are not notable just because they are startups. The article's subject meets WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG, the two relevant criteria for this article's subject. Details like it being a startup do not play a factor in whether the article's subject is notable, the only relevant question is "does it meet the relevant notability guidelines" and the answer to that question is "yes". There is no reason supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines to delete this article. - Aoidh (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 28 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! 05:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Density (energy or power)[edit]

Density (energy or power) (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)

Disambiguation page that doesn't seem to disambiguate any plausible search term. Energy density was already listed at Density (disambiguation), and I've added the other two there as well. And Power density has a hatnote to Surface power density. If this were a plausible search term I might just redirect to the main DAB, but I don't think it's something anyone would type in naturally; pageviews are likely from search suggestions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:54, 28 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! 05:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black Bear Spring, Arizona[edit]

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

This appears to have been some sort of mistake in GNIS, as the entry is no longer there. The topos show a "Bond Spring" at about the right spot, SW of Lutz Tunnel, which was actually a mine. In the same area, apparently, was the Black Bear Mine. Searching got lots of false hits on what black bears do in the spring and tons of clickbait, and many references to it as an area, but nothing that would indicate a settlement of this name. Mangoe (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you're talking about the "this ID does not exist" thing, GNIS seems to be doing that for everything. Compare Wahweap, which I'm pretty sure was there last time I looked, and Flagstaff, which I'm pretty sure is a real city. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 08:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we had a small plane fly into a major transmission line, taking out power in Gaithersburg (which is where their offices are, I believe) until noon today. I see the entry is taken from a Forest Service map, which is never a good sign. Without seeing the map in question it's hard to guess what they were thinking, but in any case I didn't find anything suggesting it was ever a settle,ment. Mangoe (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see the GNIS entry today. No evidence of notability. Probably a typo - likely this is an actual spring and not a populated place. MB 17:34, 28 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! 05:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Lansing[edit]

List of tallest buildings in Lansing (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, they must meet WP:NLIST/WP:GNG. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Shreveport and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama which both closed as clear delete, with closure statements refuting the argument that any other criteria takes precedence over notability for these lists.

The topic of tall buildings in Lansing, Michigan as a whole has no significant coverage that I found, so GNG/NLIST is not met. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Yet another list sourced from Emporis which mostly goes to show that nothing in Lansing is particularly tall. Mangoe (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Andhra cricketers. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kakani Harish[edit]

Kakani Harish (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 general coverage. ESPC cricinfo is the only source provided, and other cricketing websites also have the same statistics as this. Per the stats, he played 15 matches in his career. Bringing to AfD as a contested PROD. Jay 💬 04:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Andhra Pradesh. Jay 💬 04:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Andhra cricketers per WP:ATD-R and WP:PRESERVE. There may be coverage in Indian sources and the article can be quickly restored from redirect if and when found. BcJvs | talk UTC 11:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Andhra cricketers Not sure my redirect was reverted here. WP:ATD is policy for situations like this, it's unlikely there's GNG coverage on the subject but he clearly played games, and there is a suitable redirect. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ATD-R is why this article is now at AfD, as an inappropriate redirect. WP:PRESERVE suggests to do a lot of things, and BLARing the article is not one of them. This goes against what a redirect is for, and this as a redirect is a prime candidate for deletion at WP:RfD. Jay 💬 03:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirecting to a suitable list has been the policy for articles like this since the WP:NSPORTS guidelines were updated, and even before that. There is nothing here to suggest that this is an inappropriate redirect. The subject existed, played games (which would have qualified him for previous notability when the article was created), and only played for that side. The list is a suitable redirect. Obviously it would be preferred if the lists had some biographical details of the players, but these can be added at a later date, and by redirecting, if sourcing is found, perhaps offline or in local language sources, the article can be restored. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus established at multiple AfD and other discussions to redirect articles such as this where possible, dates from the Chitty debacle back in 2018 - and probably existed partially before that. Given the difficulty in finding non-English language sources and sources in general from the Indian subcontinent, it seems reasonable to redirect here and hope that at some point in the future someone will have the time and energy to unearth sources about the chap. That ensures that the original attribution and sourcing is retained and the spirit of PRESERVE is followed. There certainly appears to be some passing mentions of him in The Hindu, Indian Express and Times of India and it wouldn't surprise me at all to find more references in regional news sources, quite possibly not in English. A redirect to List of Andhra cricketers makes sense here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do not wish to convert this to a redirect discussion, we have WP:RfD for that. Redirection rules do not give perference to WP:NSPORTS guidelines, nor to particular sports bios. If the BLAR was to a suitable list, I wouldn't have brought this to AfD. From what I see, the suggested target list has entries with articles or redlinks, and Kakani Harish, if redirected there, will be neither, and we can't have circular redirects. Jay 💬 15:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A range of relevant arguments relating to redirection have been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jyothi Krishna (cricketer). Rather than repeat them here, perhaps the closer may want to check those. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See relisting rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish Sinha.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most lists I have seen are strict per WP:PEOPLELIST where editors choose even more stringent requirements, such as already having an article written (not just qualifying for one). If the cricket lists in general, and the editors at the Andhra one, allows for non-linked entries, then I have no problem with this being a redirect there. Jay 💬 07:33, 28 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 Bihar cricketers. Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Sinha[edit]

Ashish Sinha (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 general coverage. ESPC cricinfo is the only source provided, and other cricketing websites also have the same statistics as this. Per the stats, he played 2 matches in one tournament, and 2 in another. Bringing to AfD as a contested PROD. Jay 💬 03:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, Bihar, and Jharkhand. Jay 💬 03:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Bihar cricketers per WP:ATD-R and WP:PRESERVE. There may be coverage in Indian sources and the article can be quickly restored from redirect if and when found. BcJvs | talk UTC 11:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Bihar cricketers Not sure why my redirect was reverted here. WP:ATD is policy here in situations like this. The subject likely fails WP:GNG but did play, and played the majority of matches for Bihar, so there's a suitable redirect. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ATD-R is why this article is now at AfD, as an inappropriate redirect. WP:PRESERVE suggests to do a lot of things, and BLARing the article is not one of them. This goes against what a redirect is for, and this as a redirect is a prime candidate for deletion at WP:RfD. Jay 💬 03:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirecting to a suitable list has been the policy for articles like this since the WP:NSPORTS guidelines were updated, and even before that. There is nothing here to suggest that this is an inappropriate redirect. The subject existed, played games (which would have qualified him for previous notability when the article was created), and only played for that side. The list is a suitable redirect. Obviously it would be preferred if the lists had some biographical details of the players, but these can be added at a later date, and by redirecting, if sourcing is found, perhaps offline or in local language sources, the article can be restored. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of sources as his games for Bihar were "interesting": Indian Express, Hindustan Times etc.... Whilst I'm not sure this is a case for keep, there's clearly some potential there for some sort of Wikipedia content somewhere or other. Given that the coverage is predominantly about Bihar, a redirect to List of Bihar cricketers is clearly appropriate, preferably with a note added. This is consistent with the consensus that has been developed over a long period of time where if there's an appropriate place to redirect to we do so. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do not wish to convert this to a redirect discussion, we have WP:RfD for that. Redirection rules do not give perference to WP:NSPORTS guidelines, nor to particular sports bios. If the BLAR was to a suitable list, I wouldn't have brought this to AfD. From what I see, the suggested target list has entries with articles or redlinks, and Ashish Sinha, if redirected there, will be neither, and we can't have circular redirects. Jay 💬 15:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A range of relevant arguments relating to redirection have been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jyothi Krishna (cricketer). Rather than repeat them here, perhaps the closer may want to check those. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as it has become a bit of a confused mess. The consensus is to turn this article into a redirect to List of Bihar cricketers but the nominator objects to that action as it could result in future action at RFD. However, they haven't put forward an argument for deletion either so I'm not sure what option they are arguing for. So, I hope this objection gets talked out over the next few days and this discussion can be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most lists I have seen are strict per WP:PEOPLELIST where editors choose even more stringent requirements, such as already having an article written (not just qualifying for one). If the cricket lists in general, and the editors at the Bihar one, allows for non-linked entries, then I have no problem with this being a redirect there. However, note that Ashish Sinha has no mention in the list, having been removed with a bunch of others in 2020. Jay 💬 07:33, 28 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. The consensus of the editors participating in this discussion is that this article should be Kept. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Western Australia Party[edit]

Western Australia Party (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 political party, they have no representatives and the sources are all routine coverage of election results and confer no notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep currently registered party [31] which had a member of WA parliament in 2020-2021 Charles Smith. --Scott Davis Talk 03:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Being registered is irrelevant for notability and having a former member of parliament doesn't infer notability to the party (I'd note that member was a defector from One Nation so the party didn't even win the seat with him, they were gifted it by the member). Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a notability guideline for political parties in Australia? What is missing from this party? It has been registered and fielded candidates for multiple elections in two jurisdictions (Commonwealth and WA), has had a member of parliament. Another pre-election article is [32] from September this year before the 2022 North West Central state by-election. --Scott Davis Talk 05:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no political party specific notability guideline. Only individual members gain defacto notability upon election to a state or higher electoral body. Political parties are NCORP, which is essentially rehashes GNG apart from statements that that there is no inherent or inherited notability from notable individuals who are part of the org. To answer the question, what is missing, significant coverage from multiple, reliable and independent sources. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know, there is no community consensus to apply WP:NCORP in general to political parties. WP:NONPROFIT is far more appropriate. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It fails WP:NONPROFIT as well, as there's no national or international scope and still fails GNG, with NONPROFIT requiring both. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only coverage I can find is either routine or brief coverage under the context of "minor parties" as a whole. No evidence that this party is in itself notable. OliveYouBean (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Scott Davis. Deus et lex (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Longtime registered party, has had MP, quite a bit of coverage of their eccentricities over a few years now. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient sigcov e.g. https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/retired-judge-masterminds-new-political-party-to-fight-federal-election-over-was-gst-share-ng-b88635102z. ITBF (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Drovers Wife, and Scott Davis.JarrahTree 11:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Party has received (and continues to receive) a pretty steady stream of significant coverage. 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep coverage seems more than enough to justify its article. BogLogs (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. I've expanded the article and added some RSs, which combined with JarrahTree's additions, is ample to satisfy GNG. Cabrils (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While I applaud improving the article, I still see no significant coverage of the party, and my reason had nothing to do with the quality of the article (I am of the opinion that, barring patent nonsense, the quality of an article is irrelevant to the notability of a topic). Out of the 16 citations, the majority of them are irrelevant to notability (eg, election result listings or party registrations) and the rest are insignificant minor coverage of routine election information or are about a person who happens to be involved with the party (insignificant coverage for the party itself). I would suggest that if this article is deleted that most of the information could be merged into personal pages for those who have notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep NEXIST, meets the GNG.[1][2][3][4][5]

References

  1. ^ Adshead, Gary (20 October 2017). "New political party to fight for better GST deal". The West Australian.
  2. ^ Laschon, Eliza (25 June 2018). "Move aside Greens and One Nation, the WA Party smells blood after a strong Darling Range result". ABC News.
  3. ^ Beaini, Adella (29 April 2022). "Federal Election 2022: Australians look to support minor parties". The Daily Telegraph.
  4. ^ Butler, Josh (18 May 2022). "Australian election 2022: from anti-vaxxers to revolutionaries, what do the minor parties running for the Senate stand for?". the Guardian.
  5. ^ Thorn, Meleva (5 September 2022). "Western Australia Party's dual candidates strategy in the North West Central by-election explained". WAMN News Online.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Cozens[edit]

Anthony Cozens (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 scourge must be obliterated from Wikipedia's servers as fast as humanly possible. Nothing more than a casting call sheet. MurrayGreshler (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. BogLogs (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. And reads like a promo. TheMouseMen (talk) 20:23, 28 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! 03:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Mandatory Vaccination Party[edit]

No Mandatory Vaccination Party (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 political party with no representation run by non-notable persons. Article sources are all routine coverage of election results and confer no notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Reserving judgement for now, but ever so slightly leaning keep. There is quite a bit of coverage dedicated solely to this party in reliable sources. First few pages of Google show coverage by the Western Australian and Antony Green (highly trusted election analyst in Australia). Per NCORP, there needs to be significant coverage in multiple sources, and there is certainly coverage in quite a few RS. That said, sources are not transferable. Some of the coverage is actually about the election, and so is significant coverage of the election rather than the article subject. I'm interested in the arguments of others before cementing my position. From the editing history, it does look like the article was created, as happens with many small organisations, to establish credibility. The editing history does demonstrate other editors and readers are interested, and the article is not being "controlled" by its creators or supporters of the party who have tried to scrub information or make changes the community have rejected. Given it seems important, in the public interest, and there is some significant coverage out there, leaning keep. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you hit the nail on the head with the comment regarding coverage being of the election itself rather than the party. Eg the Antony Green article is not significant coverage of the party, it's significant coverage of the mechanism of the election. Out of the 8 sources listed, 6 are routine coverage or irrelevant to notability (or a dead link), and the other two are basically the same article rewritten over two days regarding them being pranked by schoolkids. I don't think that establishes notability. The article page states that due to that prank they weren't allowed to be listed as a party in the Federal election where they came in dead last place in WA with just 900 votes. Can one short article about a political party failing to have enough support to be a political party be significant coverage? I think not. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While some of the coverage is about the election specifically, I think articles like this show that the party itself is a notable topic. The fact that people are "trolling" the party and that this is newsworthy shows notability imo. OliveYouBean (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quite a lot of media coverage of this party, including (but by no means limited to) around controversies around group ticket voting. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Drover's Wife. Deus et lex (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the Drovers Wife. JarrahTree 07:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG with significant coverage in RSBruxton (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsubishi r2000[edit]

Mitsubishi r2000 (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 line of tractors no longer in production, unsourced claims (possibly OR?). JJLiu112 (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find anything notable about this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. and Move to Alex Bobidosh. Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E. Bobadash[edit]

E. Bobadash (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 and prong 5 of WP:SPORTBASIC. Article has for 13 years remained as a sub-stub unsupported by any SIGCOV, and my searches failed to find any. (I tried redirecting to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1922, but the redirect was reverted by User:BeanieFan11. A redirect remains a reasonable alternative to deletion IMO.) Cbl62 (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of these refer to "E. Bobadash". They all refer to "Alex Bobidosh." Is this the same person? Is the article mis-titled? Also, per WP:SPORTBASIC, at least one example of the sources needs to be in the article. The book appears to be SIGCOV of "Alex Bobidosh". One possible solution: Create a well-sourced article on "Alex Bobidosh". Cbl62 (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Alex Bobidosh" and "E. Bobadash" are the same person. I have absolutely no idea why PFR lists his name like that (especially since, on his PFR profile, underneath "E. Bobadash" it lists his full name as "Alex Bobidosh"! I'll have to contact them about that.) I'll try to expand the article soon, its just currently there's a lot of topics which I need to create "well-sourced article"s for (even before this stuff about one-game players popped up, my wikipedia "to-do" list at home was over four pages long). BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An error in PFR is not a reason to keep. There is no SIGCOV whatsoever on anyone named "E. Bobadash". The sourcing you provided may or may not support creating an article on "Alex Bobidosh" but it absolutely does not support keeping an article on "E. Bobadash." Cbl62 (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that E. Bobadash and Alex Bobidosh are the same person, and the article should be moved to the latter title. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. I'm seeing a bunch of casual mentions, myself. And with that, "along with playing in the NFL" meets no notability criterion on Wikipedia. Simple participation criteria has been deprecated, full stop. That you don't like that outcome is apparent, but no one's personal approval is required for consensus to take place. Ravenswing 05:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say a book giving someone a multi-para bio as well as mentioning that subject on eight different pages is just a "casual mention." BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect until SIGCOV sourcing is found and added to the article as required by SPORTBASIC. –dlthewave ☎ 04:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is a book describing someone on eight pages and giving them a multi-paragraph bio not sigcov? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per User:BeanieFan11 sources and move the page to Alex Bobidosh. Alvaldi (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm persuaded that Bobadash/Bobidosh meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines based on the sources provided above by BeanieFan11; that said, it appears the page should be moved to Alex Bobidosh (per WP:COMMONNAME) and E. Bobadash should be kept as a redirect. Hatman31 (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there any definitive way to come up with an accurate identification/name? Please do not move the article though during this AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per BeanieFan11. An article being poorly written isn't the same as non-notable. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Alex Bobidosh per Hatman31 and BeanieFan11. Rlendog (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Alex Bobidosh. Enough WP:SIGCOV has been identified earlier in this discussion to make it a clear pass of WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 17:53, 28 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 02:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Star Registrar[edit]

Grand Star Registrar (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, defunct, unrecognised organisation whose sole 'claim to fame' is its involvement in a 2008 cease and desist case. JJLiu112 (talk) 02:08, 28 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 Black and White Lodges. and The Great Northern Hotel. XFDCloser doesn't make it possible to list more than one Merge target. Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Double R Diner[edit]

Double R Diner (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)

Taking this to AFD after a good faith reversion of my PROD. My reason was: Without user-generated sources, there isn't WP:SIGCOV for this topic. WP:BEFORE only revealed brief coverage that does not support a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Jontesta (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Weak, as the article is in very poor shape, but my BEFORE suggests this could be savlaged. There is a real world restaurant history that's unreferenced, but there are some reviews/coverage (GNews suggests it may be possible, ex.[39]) . And there is some possible analysis of it as a fictional location in scholarly sources, ex. [40] "The 1950s Double R Diner epitomizes this warped experience of time and place, described as a “floating entity” by Piatti-Farnell, 14 but also reflects the necessary spectrality of the" or [41] "By contrast, the Double R Diner–arguably an icon of Twin Peaks–is explicitly involved in diegetic discussions of franchising in Parts 13 and 15". That said, I agree that right now the sourcing of the article is too poor to warrant anything but a redirect, but even that is problematic, as the article is not mentioned in Twin Peaks outside of a note in biographies of two characters who worked there, so I am not opposed to some SOFTDELETe if nobody can save this. Ping User:Daranios, who is pretty good and finding stuff - I didn't do a comprehensive BEFORE, but the 5 minutes I spent lends to believe this is not a lost cause.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:21, 21 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! 00:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Black and White Lodges and The Great Northern Hotel under the title of Twin Peaks, Washington (currently a redirect to the show), the fictional setting of the entire show, of which all of these places are features. BD2412 T 00:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable, no significant coverage, unlikely to be any significant coverage of this fictional location, real world sources will just be routine coverage of pop culture locations (eg the house from Breaking Bad, which got a lot of "person throws pizza on roof" articles but isn't notable). Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge (see below) Daranios (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC) In addition to the sources already mentioned, Return to Twin Peaks has a four-page chapter dedicated to the diner, which flies in the face of a statement like "unlikely to be any significant coverage of this fictional location". Full of Secrets: Critical Approaches to Twin Peaks, p. 85-86, has a longish paragraph on the use of the Double R Diner's jukebox alone. Fan Phenomena: Twin Peaks has a paragraph of commentary + fan perceptions. And there are also many more short commentaries on this location, like [42], [43], [44], [45], etc. I also wonder if there's more than the short commentary I can see in the snippet in Heterotopian Horrors, as the title sounds promising. Does anyone have access to it? Daranios (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Daranios: All of this could be accomplished in the context of a larger Twin Peaks, Washington article, though. BD2412 T 15:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would be equally fine with a proper merge as described by BD2412 if it helps to find a proper place for the relevant (as in discussed by secondary sources) locations of Twin Peaks on Wikipedia. Daranios (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the discussion is closed as merge, I will be happy to carry it out myself. BD2412 T 16:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Black and White Lodges and The Great Northern Hotel as above. Most of this article appears to me to be a thinly disguised ad for the "real-life" location but the various books provide details on the place as it appears and is used in the series. HighKing++ 14:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per consensus. HighKing is right that this feels like a thin advert for the real-life location where they filmed it, and I can see the logic of deletion. But the wider Twin Peaks (location) has the potential to meet our policies. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per HighKing and Shooterwalker Andre🚐 20:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment I see support for HighKing's suggestion and I think it has a better chance of producing an article that passes WP:SIGCOV. I would be fine with a merge. Jontesta (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tranbjerg (parish of Årre)[edit]

Tranbjerg (parish of Årre) (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)

After a fair amount of digging, the best I can say about this article (created as an account's only edits in 2007, and only touched since to clear up confusion with Tranbjerg J) is that it's not an outright hoax. The one linked reference (archive) gives no coördinates, but gives the JOG number NN32-02, and Gazetteer of Denmark and the Faroe Islands: Names Approved by the United States Board on Geographic Names does record a Tranbjerg with that JOG number near Årre. However, Danish Wikipedia's only reference to this Tranbjerg is as bebyggelse, ejerlav—roughly meaning "built-up area and land lots", I think?—and Google yields only one relevant result that I can find: about the Tranbjerg Østergaard farm, at almost the exact coördinates given in the gazetteer. So I think this is one of those cases where one database got mixed up about whether something was a settlement or not, and that error propagated a little bit. But, whatever is in Tranbjerg, farmhouse or village, there does not seem to be enough verifiable information to support a Wikipedia article. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete This strongly resembles the kind of GNIS-derived problem article we've been weeding out for the past several years. We have held things that come up as "locales" non-notable unless there is a great deal of WP:GNG talk about them, and this just does not seem to fit that. Mangoe (talk) 03:38, 28 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. ✗plicit 00:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Anakin[edit]

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

A random hacker with one breach, a Twitter "prank" and a couple defacements fails WP:RECENTISM and probably doesnt meet WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Last AfD decision was speedy delete Softlemonades (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It appears they have at least 4 events described, that appears to meet GNG with the sources provided. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Coverage isn't significant. Non-notable. Delete. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been trimmed down; and has the support of quality references Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The articles cites publications such as Motherboard and ZDNet, which are considered reliable with regard to technology. The nomination rationale seems to just be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT-type argument. Partofthemachine (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not about liking it or reliability, its notability. ZDNet talks about a "few" defacements which just isnt notable and what you said about Motherboard is just false, theres no consensus about it being reliable.
    Please remember to assume good faith and not accuse other editors of secret motives Softlemonades (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My internal perceptions (how I am thinking internally, my thought process) regarding this AFD were initially formed by a monolithic or preferred focus on a single topic. Wikipedia documentation mentions the possibility that narrow focus sometimes speaks against consensus building; more so the documentation suggests that single focus can damage how you might be perceived by other editors.
    (This is not something I was going to mention, by mentioning "motives" the door to asking "why" was opened) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BBC and ZDNet are both unarguably good enough for GNG. Motherboard is less clear on reliability (I personally have no strong opinion on it; I'm not familiar with the source) but certainly significant coverage. The coverage is also spaced out across multiple years, so arguments involving WP:SUSTAINED and WP:RECENTISM don't seem to hold water. casualdejekyll 00:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My reasoning for recentism was the WP:10YEARTEST. I dont think anyone will care about a Twitter prank ten years later. Its also not the main BBC news section, its BBCs blog. Theres a difference Softlemonades (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are enough reliable sources to satisfy the GNG. Other issues can be resolved with (lots of) editing. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Highlander (franchise). ✗plicit 00:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quickening (Highlander)[edit]

Quickening (Highlander) (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 out-of-universe notability. Neocorelight (Talk) 00:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Highlander (franchise) because this is just fancruft. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Highlander (franchise) per all. Not enough third-party coverage to meet WP:N. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:22, 30 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_28&oldid=1129698782"