Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< October 26	October 28 >

Guide to deletion

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 no consensus. Star Mississippi 03:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Guild[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable writer. PepperBeast (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Alaska. PepperBeast (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability found and article is a promotional piece complete with a "maybe" book cover (LOL) and quote box. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entire article is WP:COPYVIO from here. Unless the author rewrites the article, removes all of the COPYVIO issues (including possible WP:IUP violation of the photo), and adds some more verifiable third-party sources of note, it should be deleted. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 01:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sallicio Or Prabook copied it from us. Prabook is another collaborative encyclopedia that anyone can edit.4meter4 (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per 4meter4, and generally, I'm an inclusionist. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 16:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR with multiple independent reviews in RS of The Alaskan Mushroom Hunter's Guide (1977) and The Alaska Psychoactive Mushroom Handbook (1979). May also pass criteria 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Google books has snippet views of reviews in several publications, including The Publishers Weekly - Volume 211 - Page 18, Pacific Search - Volume 12 - Page 27, Veterinary and Human Toxicology - Volume 23 - Page 68, etc. There are also many references which recommend these books or cite the books as an authoratitive resource if you look in google books. Appears to be significant publications that resulted from research conducted at the University of Washington that was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institute of Health.4meter4 (talk) 15:39, 20 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!} 23:26, 20 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!} 23:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Very Weak Keep Since this person have some slight importance. But there's just not enough notability for him, literally.Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 02:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ploreky: "But there's just not enough notability for him, literally". This statement would be read by a closer as contradicting your stated !vote, and would probably result in them opting to discard your !vote, as they wouldn't be able to determine your actual intent.

To put it a different way, saying that there isnt enough notability is an unambiguous argument to delete. Combining that with a stated !vote of "Very Weak Keep" is contradictory. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry, I just realized it. Thanks! Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 05:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Person is important, but gives very few proof of notability. But atleast satisfy WP:GNG. Might as well mark this as stub. Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 05:39, 3 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 Anuradha Bhat. Discarding all, but one, "keep" votes that state WP:INHERIT. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 23:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Anuradha Bhat[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is completely unreferenced and extraneous considering most movies the songs are from seem to be non-notable FishandChipper 🐟🍟 22:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, Lists, and India. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Anuradha Bhat as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Not all songs there are singles. SBKSPP (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merging seems to be a better option per below. SBKSPP (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary database of songs. Azuredivay (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think a redirect is necessary because the search term is unlikely. Either way, it does not qualify as an article per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How is this list different from any of the lists of songs by recording artists (some of which are FLs like Meghan Trainor and Dua Lipa)? This seems like a standard and accepted type of list so I do not get why this was in not appropriate for Wikipedia when compared to other ones. Aoba47 (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's different as this article is completly unreferenced as well as Anuradha Bhat being much less notable than Meghan Trainor and Dua Lipa. Remember Wikipedia works on a system of notoriety, and isnt just a directory for anything you can think of. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 06:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this list does not have citations is not a valid reason for deletion. An AFD should not be used for cleanup. If Anuradha Bhat is notable enough to have her own article, then I do not see a clear reason for why she should not have this type of list. How is Bhan less notable than Trainor? They both seemingly meet WP:N (and I saw seemingly as I do not know anything about Bhan) so they are both notable in the context of Wikipedia. I am just not seeing a convincing argument here. Aoba47 (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I do not see a compelling argument to delete this list. This thread has several arguments that do not really make sense in my opinion, and as I have already said above, this type of list exists for a number of singers so there is a precedent on Wikipedia for this. And to respond to a point below, not every item or even a majority of the items on this list have to be notable enough to have their own articles. Again, I just do not see a strong argument here for deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We need voters to have competence. I don't think the nominator and other voters so far have gone through Kannada language references. Even if they could have tried English references, they would have known that many of these songs have been nominated for awards and also won some. As Aoba47 says, cleanup should not be used tool for deletion of articles. All delete voters could simply add one reference each and the article would be better-looking.

Side note: Why are so many articles of Indian singer's lists getting AFDed? Fortunately all are getting kept at the end.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who reaches a conclusion different than yours is not incompetent. The awards won by Anuradha Bhat are already listed at her article, with sources and the titles of the particular songs that were named in the awards. That does not mean that we need a list of every other song she has ever recorded. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:41, 20 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!} 23:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant you are incompetent because you cant read Kannada or other Indian languages which may cover her songs. Also, am sure, you do not understand what playback singing is since Western world usually has performance singing. Many western editors are hence unable to comprehend how Western singers can only have countable songs in their lifetime whereas Indian singers churn out songs in hundreds and thousands. That competence and knowledge of the subjects is needed when editors come for commenting.
For a singer with thousands of songs and numerous awards, the whole work they have done is notable as a collection. (I am not saying that individual work is notable). And hence a list of all those songs is notable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then it seems their job is comparable more to a soundtrack artist rather than a singer no? You don't see lists of the thousands of songs say Hans Zimmer has written do you? Also just because a person is notable doesn't make their work notable. Notoriety isn't inherited, its earned.

P.S. Cool it with calling other people incompetent for not understanding something, that constitutes WP:PA. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 08:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are unfamiliar with Indian film and music industry and its terminologies. Bhat is a playback singer (a sub-category of singers) and not a soundtrack artist (a sub-category of music composers). Bhat should be compared (if at all comparison is needed) with singer who vocalize lyrics written by lyricist on the tune that is composed by music composer/director. Zimmer could be compared with A. R. Rahman who composes (not writes) film scores and songs.

PS: You shouldn't be offended if you do not have knowledge of a particular topic. But its best to not opine on such topics when you don't even know what playback singers are and what they do! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know what playback singers and soundtrack artists are, but you're not getting my point. This list shouldn't exist as it is simply a directory of hundreds of non-notable songs, the exact opposite of what Wikipedia is. If it were a list of say Award-Winning songs then it would be fine but a list of songs from movies which themselves aren't even notable is nonsense. Perhaps a list more akin to Hans Zimmer discography would make more sense, listing all the movies they've preformed for, and not just the songs.

P.S. Don't tell people what they can and cannot be offended by. You're making direct attacks on my intelligence and I am perfectly within my rights to be offended. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 10:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i have noted that you are offended. But as you are still comparing list of singer's songs with list of films whose music is composed by a composer, i have also noted that you don't still get it! Also, when you say that a list of movies in which Bhat has performed is making sense to you; i am assuming that you are under impression that all lists should be blue-linked. (It also comes from the lack of knowledge that film's songs are not just sun by one singer.) That's plain wrong! The individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. Anyways, let's allow other editors to opine. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree this database is entirely unwarranted as an article. Agletarang (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see enough notable items to warrant a list. Lorstaking (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep - a leading singer in Kannada films. Her songography is more significant than many western singers. Abbasulu (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notable person doesn't mean notable work. Notoriety isn't inherited, its earned. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 15:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of article improvements. It is "unreferenced" no longer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checked most of the references and most of them are either broken or don't mention Anuradha Bhat or the song in question. Seemingly just placed to avoid lack of references claim. Also 4 out of a few hundred necessary references isn't exact referenced. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 08:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Anuradha Bhat Most reasonable thing to do. Since works aren't usually notable and not inherited from it's maker.Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 02:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would only be necesarry to merge the notable songs (I.e nominated or won an award). The rest of the songs are just there for the sake of being there. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 11:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. Fails WP:LISTCRITERIA and WP:CSC. WP:LISTVERIFY: Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 22:12, October 29, 2022 (UTC)
Delete: Falls far outside the criteria laid out regarding notability for a standalone list Dexxtrall (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otr500 (and several other people who I'm sure have said the same amongst this wall of text). QuietHere (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs citations, but WP:DINC. This is a notable artist and having a list of their works is standard practice. Bondegezou (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notable person doesn't mean notable work. Notoriety isn't inherited, its earned. Generally the reason artists have a list of works is because their works are also shown to be notable, these aren't. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 15:15, 3 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 and it does not appear any further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 03:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Bo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No clear indication of notability, and I didn't have much luck finding any sources. Article has been orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Fictional elements, and Journalism. PepperBeast (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable sources for this author, nor anyway to bring this article up to wiki standards. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Zhang, Yi 张漪 (2014-11-17). "《坏姐姐》编剧柏邦妮：女汉子心里都有一个萌妹子" ["Bad Sister" screenwriter Bonnie Bo: Every woman has a cute girl in her heart]. Yangtse Evening Post (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-10-17. Retrieved 2022-10-17 – via People's Daily.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "The name Bo Bonnie may be familiar to many Nanjing netizens, because when Xici Hutong was popular for a while, Bo Bonnie "has been haunted" in many movie music and literary editions, and she has also built her own discussion section. At that time, she was still in college. She was born in 1982 and is from Lianyungang. After graduating from high school, she was admitted to the film and television department of Nanjing University of the Arts, but after more than a year, she went to the Beijing Film Academy as an auditor. After that, she has experience in media work, column writing, and book publishing, and gradually clarified her writing direction. A few years ago, she was admitted to the Beijing Film Academy for a master's degree and systematically studied screenwriting."
2. "《拆婚联盟》编剧柏邦妮:黑遍十二星座" ["Marriage Breaking Alliance" Screenwriter Bonnie Bo: Black Twelve Constellation] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2014-10-27. Archived from the original on 2022-10-17. Retrieved 2022-10-17.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Bonnie Bo is a legend. She once attracted much attention for being the top student in the college entrance examination who dropped out of school. She also became popular on the Internet because of "A Letter to My Sister"; she was affectionately called "the first in the West Temple" by netizens. Talented Girl", also participated in the screenwriting work of the new version of "Dream of Red Mansions" as the main force of "Youth Dream Team". After graduating from Beijing Film Academy with Zhao Wei [microblogging], she switched back and forth between the two professions of writer and screenwriter, non-stop. She is a post-80s female screenwriter and a leading figure in the new generation of writers."
3. Zhang, Jingjing 张晶晶 (2013-08-02). "见好柏邦妮" [Meet Bonnie Bo]. China Science Daily [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-10-17. Retrieved 2022-10-17.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Zhang Shanshan, who left Nanjing University of the Arts and went north, gave herself a new name called Bo Bonnie. ... In the summer of 2002, Zhang Shanshan, a former top student in the college entrance examination for arts in Jiangsu Province, chose to drop out; in 2007, Bo Bonnie, an auditor of the Beijing Film Academy, was admitted to the graduate school of the Beijing Film Academy and became Zhao Wei's classmate. ... This spring, Bonnie Bo was invited to Japan to interview female photographer Ninagawa Mika."
4. "编剧柏邦妮：兴高采烈奔跑的八十后(图)" [Screenwriter Bai Bonnie: Happy 80th Generation (Photo)]. Xiaoxiang Morning Herald [zh] (in Chinese). 2010-07-23. Archived from the original on 2022-10-17. Retrieved 2022-10-17 – via NetEase.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Bonnie Bai, whose name comes from the 1960s Hollywood love movie "Bonnie and Clyde", is the Bonnie who "looked at each other and smiled with Clyde, shot 167 times in the sun, fell to the ground and died". She fled from a university that "couldn't see her ideal", went to Beiying as an auditor, and was admitted to a graduate school."
5. Liu, Chengxian 刘成献 (2009-07-30). Zhu, Kaili 朱凯莉 (ed.). "柏邦妮：像38D一样骄傲地生活" [Bonnie: Live proudly like 38D]. Tianshannet (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2022-10-17.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Born in Lianyungang City, Jiangsu Province in 1982, Bonnie Bo was born in Lianyungang City, Jiangsu Province. Both parents work in scientific research institutions. ... In the year of the college entrance examination, Bo Bonnie lived up to the expectations of her parents and was admitted to the Nanjing University of the Arts with a high score in the province's art category. ... In 2006, after four years of audition and study, Bonnie Bo was successfully admitted to the Literature Department of Beijing Film Academy to study for postgraduate studies. ... In March 2008, Bonnie Bo suddenly received a call from the "Dream of Red Mansions" preparatory team, inviting her and 8 other young screenwriters to write the script for the new version of "Dream of Red Mansions"."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bonnie Bo (Chinese: 柏邦妮) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:38, 17 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!} 23:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please consider new sources offered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to another article possible She has some importance, but still not notable. I searched her throughout the internet yet still have no satisfying results. Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 03:02, 29 October 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!} 06:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling King[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga, Japan, and Taiwan. PepperBeast (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Santos, Carlo (2006-10-17). "Right Turn Only!". Anime News Network. Archived from the original on 2022-10-17. Retrieved 2022-10-17.
  The review notes: "With Taiwanese comics starting to trickle onto North American bookshelves, the breakthrough work could be one that has all the elements of the biggest manga hits. An irreverent young hero with an unlikely gift? Check. A seemingly unattainable quest? Check. An outlandish concept and wild humor? ... When Shautieh gets pumped up, he doesn't just start emanating speedlines—he literally turns into an Eva, or Kenshin, or Batman, for crying out loud! Visual gags like that are part of the series' comedic lifeblood, along with acerbic put-downs and madcap facial expressions. If anyone could harness the energy of Bowling King, we'd have renewable power for the next several centuries. With the first major arc just underway by the end of the volume, most readers will be clamoring for the next one right away."
2. Chet (2019-01-21). "睽違12年台漫《滾球王》回來了！作者唐靉發布最新續集預告" [After 12 years, the Taiwanese manga "Bowling King" is back! Author Tang Zhao released the latest sequel trailer]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-10-17. Retrieved 2022-10-17.
  The article notes: "以保齡球為題材的運動漫畫《滾球王》於1997年在《新少年快報》連載，還曾在日本、韓國刊載過。由於當年台灣正盛行打保齡球，加上漫畫本身有熱血的劇情，風格也相當幽默搞笑，在台灣有不小的人氣。消息一公布後，許多書迷也曬出自己的收藏，希望老師能夠盡快補完後續。"
  From Google Translate: "The bowling-themed sports manga "Bowling King" was serialized in New Youth Express in 1997, and has also been published in Japan and South Korea. Because bowling was popular in Taiwan at that time, and the comics themselves had a bloody plot, and the style was quite humorous, it was quite popular in Taiwan. As soon as the news was announced, many book fans also posted their collections, hoping that the teacher could complete the follow-up as soon as possible."
3. Wang, Lanfen 王蘭芬 (2004-06-10). "漫畫滾球王票選" [Manga Bowling King vote]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). p. A13.
  The article notes: "《新少年快報》大受歡迎的連載《滾球王》進入第200回，雜誌為此舉辦票選活動，只要投票就有機會獲得《滾球王》T恤。"
  From Google Translate: "The popular series "Bowling King" of New Youth Express entered its 200th round, and the magazine held a voting event for this, as long as you vote, you will have a chance to win the "Bowling King" T-shirt."
4. Cao, Mingzong 曹銘宗 (2004-01-30). "平民總統阿扁拿下漫畫金像獎賴有賢澄清創作不須送審許貿淞「走過不當漫畫政策年代」獲終身成就獎" [Civilian President Ah Bian wins Comic-Con. Lai Youxian clarifies that creation does not need to be submitted for review. Xu Maosong "Walking Through the Age of Improper Comics Policy" won the Lifetime Achievement Award]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. B6.
  The article notes: "第三屆漫畫金像獎其他得主 ... 最佳劇情唐靉「滾球王」"
  From Google Translate: "Other winners of the 3rd Comics Awards... Best Story Tang Yu "Rolling Ball King""
  The article notes: "由網友及讀者票選各項超人氣獎，得主是 ... 超人氣劇情唐靉「滾球王」..."
  From Google Translate: "Netizens and readers voted for various super popular awards, and the winner was... Super popular plot Tang Yu "Bowling King"..."
5. Chen, Zhiyu 陳芝宇 (2003-10-27). "都是美麗惹的禍2 林欣穎低調唐璦神秘" [It's all the fault of beauty 2. Lin Xinying is low-key, Tang Ai is mysterious]. Star News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 4.
  The article notes: "「滾球王」是目前極受歡迎的一部國人漫畫，作者唐璦也是美女，不過她比林欣穎更低調"
  From Google Translate: ""Bowling King" is currently a very popular Chinese comic. The author Tang Ai is also a beautiful woman, but she is more low-key than Lin Xinying"
6. Chen, Zhiyu 陳芝宇 (2003-06-19). "唐璦神龍見首不見尾" [Tang Ai, the dragon sees its head but not its tail]. Star News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 17.
  The article notes: "頗受少年讀者熱愛的「滾球王」，作者唐璦也是一位行事低調的漫畫家。 ... 「滾球王」直到現在還是追著連載跑的熱門漫畫。"
  From Google Translate: "Tang Ai, the author of "Rolling Ball King", which is very popular among young readers, is also a low-key cartoonist. ... "Rolling Ball King" is still a popular manga that is chasing serialization."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bowling King (traditional Chinese: 滾球王; simplified Chinese: 滚球王) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:51, 17 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!} 23:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please consider new sources offered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided above. Clear WP:GNG pass. Frank Anchor 03:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Link20XX (talk) 05:15, 29 October 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 Volkswagen or a section therein as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 03:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PayByPhone[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no sources cited except for the company's homepage. The only other reference is a deadlink. RPI2026F1 (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Internet. RPI2026F1 (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:V. Promotional tone, although that could be fixed. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak keep/Merge. I'm finding some actual sources that are either about it or heavily mention it The Guardian: Ten members of Germany’s sprawling Porsche automotive dynasty, which controls Volkswagen, were named in accounts lodged at Companies House this month as “persons of significant control” behind PayByPhone, one of the UK’s most successful parking apps.. Chronicle Live: Parking app PayByPhone says it is aware of bogus websites duping motorists; Business Intelligence for B.C.: Any Vancouver driver who’s shunned pocket change in favour of digital payments at the city’s parking meters will no doubt be familiar with the PayByPhone Technologies Inc. logo adorning the nearly 12,000 devices.; GeekWire: Seattle has been using PayByPhone technology since 2013. A representative of the Seattle city attorney’s office said the city couldn’t comment on pending litigation.; WLRN: Since then, the city has been at the forefront of transitioning the parking experience from street meters to an electronic app called PayByPhone, a Canada-based app owned by Volkswagen -- the largest carmaker in the world.. Le Journal de l'Automobile: PayByPhone nomme son nouveau président (doesn't appear to be just a PR release or paid article). And a lot more of that level. It definitely needs cleanup to make less promotional. Skynxnex (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second source to me doesn't seem relevant to the article. But I do think there might be merit in the fact that a lot of places are using this company for their payment system. And I 100% agree that the article needs to be fully rewritten to focus more on the areas that are using it and less about the actual technology itself and it's functionality, since it doesn't sound innovative enough to warrant significant focus. RPI2026F1 (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RPI2026F1 I'm not sure which source you think isn't relevant to the article? The Chronicle Live one? It may or may not be suitable to be included, but there are many articles talking about scams targeting PayByPhone parking areas so it probably could be. Skynxnex (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you want to use it to say "This app is popular enough that there are various scams targeting them specifically"? Didn't think of it in that way RPI2026F1 (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought some more and read through the notes and it definitely is on the edge of just churnalism even with the volume and not pure PR. I've adjusted to weak keep/merge (since I think a decent article is possible) but a suitable redirect/addition of content to that target would be fine too, really. Skynxnex (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. Skynxnex (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell, there's nothing that distinguishes this one from any of the dozens other apps/services with the same functionality. If anything, it might get mentioned in passing in the Parking article, but that's it. As for any local news mentions - yes, any changes or issues related to parking will get you a news article in the local news. It's hardly an indicator of notability. EditorInTheRye (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable about this app for our purposes. It just exists and does what it's supposed to it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see how it doesn't meet WP:NCORP. It's not all local in the same area and there are significant articles covering the company itself, which are entirely independent: Volkswagen buys Vancouver firm in drive for mobility, Financial Post 29 December 2016, does not appear to just be a press release. "Parking Apps Partner to Offer More Options", South Florida Sun Sentinel Fort Lauderdale, Florida · Saturday, December 26, 2015] (available in Newspaper.com): a multiparagraph story about a partnership between PayByPhone and another company by a staff writer. Apple Pay comes to the parking meter with PayByPhone's latest update (tech republican so a less good source but doesn't appear to be paid); Volkswagen purchases PayByPhone for parking techcrunch so eh; Miami’s most-used parking app is now available in Spanish in the Miami Herald, Taking St. John's PayByPhone parking for a test drive by the CBC and is a bit more of an actual store than the dozens of "PayByPhone comes to X".

If anything this app is better covered by more sources than most other parking apps, in my experience. Skynxnex (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this make it eligible to be merged into the article for Volkswagen or a sub-article about their other brands? RPI2026F1 (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing maybe two paragraphs in the Financial Post article about PayByPhone (the second and third paragraphs), and those are statements by the company? Not looked at the others. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:28, 14 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!} 23:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I see suggestions for a Redirect/Merge (as an ATD) but no target mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Volkswagen Group: Per Skynxnex. Despite the reliable sources indicated above, I don't think there's a way to expand the article further. That said, merging the entire content to the "financial" section of the target article is the way to go. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:36, 30 October 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 23:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aquapac[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:VERIFY. and is promotional material for Aquapac International Limited, (which is also not notable) SMBMovieFan (talk) 22:38, 27 October 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 October 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. 2006 unsourced article that fails WP:ORGCRIT This is a small company with around $5 Million revenue. One source lists 11 employees and another 41 employees. At any rate, Wikipedia is not a business directory. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note: the nominator is a sockpuppet who has been blocked indefinitely. Please vote regardless. Nythar (💬-🎃) 00:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources and it is promotional. The only thing I could find when I searched it up was the product from the company on amazon and other shopping companies.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 02:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything that suggests notability. --Devoke water 11:45, 3 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antiochus Gelotopoios[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems made-up and should be deleted unless someone can verify that this person actually existed. Another editor, Xerxesxerxesxerxes333, flagged this as a likely hoax but the G3 speedy was declined. DanCherek (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. DanCherek (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete; It does not look liken that Antiochus Gelotopoios ever existed and has ZERO coverage from reliable sources. Every source I've found copies the exact opening of the article, and it's very likely that user-generated sources simply copied the material from here. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I checked one of the sources (Conquest and Empire); there is no mention of Antiochus anywhere in such book, much less on that page InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The cited sources don't mention such a person, and my searches didn't find any evidence at all of his existence. Since a prominent historical figure of this sort would be discussed in a wide variety of sources, this is clearly a hoax. (For extra credit, "Gelotopoios" apparently means "jester", another indication that this is a joke/hoax article.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Convinced this is a hoax judging by the creator's username also being Antiochus. Curbon7 (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may also be worthwhile also contacting our friends at Indonesian Wikipedia (User:Bennylin?), as this hoax article exists there as well [1]. Curbon7 (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping. I will get back to you shortly after checking the source. Bennylin (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted in id.wp Bennylin (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources linked to the Internet Archive in the article do not actually contain this name at all (nor does the Internet Archive as a whole). BD2412 T 05:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This should serve as a reminder to us all to check the actual sources' context. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not mentioned in the sources cited. That Heckel's comprehensive Who's Who in the Age of Alexander the Great does not mention him is not a good sign – it has entries for much less well attested figures than Antiochus Gelotopoios allegedly is. Looking at the ancient sources, the most damning is the supposed mention in Herodotus, who died 70 years before Antiochus was allegedly born, while Athenaeus 12 doesn't mention spices from Sri Lanka or Antiochus. This has every appearance of being a hoax. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I am being weary of this deletion. Since there is a chance that this person does actually exists. But, it deosn't remove the fact that this man is not notable. I've searched the internet about him, yet I can't find any proofs of his existence. May be as well a fictional character. Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 07:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, This person never existed - the article is a hoax. I won’t go into unnecessary detail about how this fact came to my attention 5 years after the article’s creation, but the evidence could almost not be more obvious. Every single source cited in the References section does not mention the subject at all. Every chapter and line of the texts cited, from the Arrian to the Plutarch, also does not mention the subject in any capacity whatsoever. As has already been stated, the assertions in the article concerning Herodotus are impossible, as he had died decades before the subject was born. The apparent name of the subject is ‘Jester’. Without intending to speculate too excessively, I would note that this appears most likely to be a bad faith entry, by an individual with a surface level knowledge (albeit in this case one sufficient for their purposes) of the period, in order to validate a not infrequent idea about the fickle reliability of a publicly maintained encyclopaedia - a goal continuously achieved for some 5 years now. A humanist myself, I would propose no longer. Xerxesxerxesxerxes333 (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons above and because "Gelotopoios" is Greek for "jester". 68.189.242.116 (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Xerxesxerxesxerxes333 said it. Srnec (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's time for this page to go, let it WP:SNOW, let it snow... Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 11:47, 3 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 23:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umanath Singh[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing any indication of notability about this person or how he passes WP:NPROF. When searching in the Hindi language under उमानाथ सिंह, results returned are about a person by the same name who died over 20 years ago, or other unrelated individuals. Declined at AfC but author moved back to mainspace anyway. Prose suggests he may have had notable ancestors, yet neither the article nor it's sources suggest this person inherits this notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Royalty and nobility. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The sources are either irrelevant or not accessible without login. GS gives no research papers that seem to be from this scholar. What's needed are obituaries, significant material about Umanath Singh's research (eg festschrifts, reviews), or multiple academic books that have been reviewed. Without any of that, I can't see how notability can be demonstrated. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment* This article is the notable people , deletion is not a option. This article relies largely on a single source, it may be possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThunderClap11 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment* This article is about notable person, deletion is not a option. References are already given. Only one or two links are not open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrhSR (talk • contribs) 03:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Nothing in the article indicates individual notability significant enough for Wikipedia. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:25, 3 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 23:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of formerly unidentified decedents, 2000–2009[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY as both "a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" and a "repository of loosely associated topics". This list is an original grouping that is never discussed collectively as a list in any sources; mainly compiled through an original synthesis of WP:PRIMARY sources. According to NAMUS, "4,400 unidentified bodies are recovered each year, with approximately 1,000 of those bodies remaining unidentified after one year." There is therefore nothing unusual about being a formerly unidentified body. This is essentially WP:LISTCRUFT. 4meter4 (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have essentially the same issue in passing our notability policies in regards to lists:

Please consider these articles in relation to our notability policies on lists.4meter4 (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 27 October 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 October 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons stated by nom. Edge3 (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this un-encyclopedic nonsense per nom. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:26, 3 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 23:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project management 2.0[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear if this meets WP:GNG. I've found a few things which use the term: an article from the Project Management Institute ([2]), a Wiley textbook that uses it as the title ([3]), and a paper from a 2011 conference ([4]).

The main issue here is that each of these describe similar ideas but not necessarily the same thing; it seems possible "Project management 2.0" is in this case a buzzword that several people were independently using to describe their ideas. The sources used by the current article are mostly offline, and the ones which remain aren't reliable and in one case include a marketing blog for a company the article's primary writer might be associated with (based on their edit history; they have not declared any COI or paid involvement).

This page is also only linked from one other mainspace non-redirect page, Social project management, where it's in the "See Also" section of a page that has similar issues. Prior AfDs were a delete (the page was later recreated) and a no consensus from an AfD that had no discussion (not sure why that wasn't a soft delete).

Personally I think it's unlikely this is a widely used term and that this reads enough like promotional content and contains little enough encyclopedic value that even if there is some term of art here it's worth considering WP:TNT and letting it get re-added in a neutral/non-marketing way. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Management. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

del. Not a well-established term, fails WP:GNG. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Years-old, content-free marketroid verbiage. XOR'easter (talk) 18:31, 28 October 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!} 06:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finance & Development[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A journal of the IMF, but notability is not inherited Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to International Monetary Fund. No reason not to cover their publication on that page.4meter4 (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Indexed in Scopus, which meets WP:NJournals. Article needs a lot of work, but that's not a reason to delete. --Randykitty (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RK. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep; ibid above reasoning. Either one works depending on which option is more popular InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:41, 27 October 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 03:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Energy–depth relationship in a rectangular channel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research by OCFGroup1 (talk · contribs), who created it in their user page and moved into article space then expanded by SPI 68.100.233.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), probably the same person Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass WP:SIGCOV. There are offline sources and a couple online ones listed at the bottom of the article. The page has existed in mainspace for the last 12 years, and it does need inline citations. Without engaging with the sources, I am not seeing a strong argument here that the article is in fact original research or non-notable. We need an in-depth analysis of the sources to prove the claim of original research.4meter4 (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence that the bunch of publications at the bottom support the text and I dont think anybody is in a posittion to analyze this text. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have engineering training to understand some of this, but I don't understand what makes it an encyclopedia article. Unfortunately, like in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimensionless momentum-depth relationship in open-channel flow, a professor had their students write about how to solve particular types of engineering problems, including making the diagrams in the article, but the professor did not ensure they wrote an article for Wikipedia with descriptions of what makes this a notable topic. Rephrasing textbook explanations of the steps to derive certain relationships is not what goes here. Two of the citations are just this professor's class notes!! Reywas92^Talk 21:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to Open-channel flow#Energy equation. The current article fails WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 09:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't Engineering-pedia, this appears to have been copied verbatim from a textbook. Only an engineering student will need this. It does nothing to explain what it is or why we use it etc. High-level mathematics is fine to be included, but you still need to summarize what you're explaining to people and how it relates to the average Joe. This is another example of those articles that are too long to be BS, but a lack of context and sourcing makes it look out of place in a general encyclopedia. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for this textbook page. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:29, 3 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 Open-channel flow#Momentum equation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Momentum–depth relationship in a rectangular channel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonencyclopedic maqth/physics treatise Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass WP:SIGCOV. There are offline sources at the bottom of the article. The page has existed in mainspace for the last 12 years, and it does need inline citations. Without engaging with the sources, I am not seeing a strong argument here that the article is in fact original research or non-notable. We need an in-depth analysis of the sources to prove the claim of original research.4meter4 (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence that the bunch of publications at the bottom support the text and I dont think anybody is in a posittion to analyze this text. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have engineering training to understand some of this, but I don't understand what makes it an encyclopedia article. Unfortunately, like in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimensionless momentum-depth relationship in open-channel flow, a professor had their students write about how to solve particular types of engineering problems, including making the diagrams in the article, but the professor did not ensure they wrote an article for Wikipedia with descriptions of what makes this a notable topic. Rephrasing textbook explanations of the steps to derive certain relationships is not what goes here. Two of the citations are just this professor's class notes!! Reywas92^Talk 21:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to Open-channel flow#Momentum equation. The current article fails WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 09:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as outlined by, and for the reasons given by, SailingInABathTub PianoDan (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus us clear. However if someone thinks a redirect would be helpful, that's an editorial call. Star Mississippi 03:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensionless specific energy diagrams for open-channel flow[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original reasearh Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:SIGCOV. There are offline sources at the bottom of the article. The page has existed in mainspace for the last 12 years, and it does need inline citations. Without engaging with the sources, I am not seeing a strong argument here that the article is in fact original research or non-notable. We need an in-depth analysis of the sources to prove the claim of original research.4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence that the bunch of publications at the bottom support the text and I dont think anybody is in a posittion to analyze this text. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Open-channel flow is the notable topic. Here, a student used their textbooks and professor's course notes to write up the mathematical derivation process of the relationships between between energy and depth in open-channel flow and made their own plots to go with it. No part of this article established how the dimensionless energy diagrams are themselves notable or why Wikipedia is the place to publish homework. Unsurprising that it's been here for 12 years since the only page that links to it is their classmate's Dimensionless momentum-depth relationship in open-channel flow. Reywas92^Talk 21:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to Open-channel flow#Energy equation. The current article fails WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 09:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to have been copied verbatim from a text-book. There are no inline sources, nor does it really explain what this does or why we need to know it. High-level engineering is fine, but you should at least summarize what it is so a lay person can see if the article is useful. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 27 October 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arit Anderson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a television presenter, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for television presenters. The notability claims on offer here are that she (a) exists, and (b) won an award at a festival, neither of which are automatic notability freebies in the absence of adequate evidence that she would pass WP:GNG on third-party media coverage -- but the "referencing" here is entirely to primary sourcing that isn't support for notability at all, such as a job footnoted to a mere repetition of the names of her colleagues rather than a third-party source, and a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person rather than having the significance of her work externally analyzed by other people in the third. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced quite a bit better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and England. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I arrived here after a brief look at the author's Talk after finding another poorly-referenced (new) article, Allen Millyard - not as bad as this one, though. Disappointed to find (as I expected) an autopatrolled editor slipping-in articles through the back door (and holding NPP rights) when these articles do not comply. Considering a 2006 registration, the failure to correctly-format citations (and mis-use of ref tags) is also remarkable.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Considering the latter two points, I should've mentioned WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, but looking at the linked text, it itself is of not much help.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems notable as there are plenty of sources in Gsearch. Most are tabloid/celeb gossip magazines, one hit in the Independent. Seems to be on the path to notability. BADLY needs a rewrite. TNT anyone? Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "won an award at a festival" is a little underplaying the Chelsea Flower Show, which is the premier venue for garden design in Britain by a country light year. Google News & Google show lots of hits for the subject, probably because a black woman presenting a show of the class of Gardeners' World in Britain is still a bit of a novelty; see for eg, Guardian. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC - there is also: Gardeners’ World to showcase Eden’s exciting new features (Falmouth Packet, 2017, "Leading garden designer Arit Anderson created the climate change-themed Near Future Garden, which won a gold medal at the RHS Hampton Court Palace Flower Show last year..."), Arit Anderson confirmed as presenter for LI Awards 2019 (Pro Landscaper, 2019, "Arit is well known for her work as a presenter on BBC Gardener’s World, and more recently, BBC One’s Garden Rescue"), 10 Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic gardeners (Horticulture Week, 2020), Arit Anderson: Meet the TV gardener who wants her show garden to feel like a big hug (Independent, 2021, e.g. "She won an RHS Fresh Talent award at the Chelsea Flower Show back in 2013, and a gold for her show garden at the RHS Hampton Court show in 2016"), Garden Rescue: new team of garden designers revealed as the Rich brothers and Arit Anderson exit confirmed (House Beautiful, 2021), Chelsea Flower Show 2021: BBC's The One Show reveals their Garden of Hope (Country Living, 2021, "The Show Garden, titled The BBC One Show and RHS Garden of Hope, has been designed by award-winning garden designer and TV presenter Arit Anderson. [...] A haven of happiness, one of the features central to Arit's design is a beautiful steam-bent wooden sculpture, which twists and flows like a meandering river through the garden."), Chelsea Flower Show 2021: all 27 gardens (and winners) at this year's show (House Beautiful, 2021, "FEATURE GARDEN (not judged) Designed by Arit Anderson, this garden illustrates how gardening and growing plants provides hope and joy, [...]"), The top garden trends to embrace in 2022, according to the experts (Good Housekeeping, 2022). Beccaynr (talk) 07:12, 30 October 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!} 06:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M. Ct. Pethachi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

subject was an industrialist but no indication on the page of anything suggesting notability and I can't find any GNG sources JMWt (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches on Google News turned up nothing for "M. Ct. Pethachi". Definitely fails WP:GNG. Moresdi (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP if they're still alive, and WP:BIO if they're not. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims Resource[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Sims Resource is a fan-made website to host mods and custom content for The Sims titles. This website does not receive signficant media attention, and hence fails notability requirements. Theknine2 (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the article has no encyclopedic value and fails to meet basic notability. — CR4ZE (T • C) 06:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don’t really have any experience in AFD but looking at the article, there are only about three reliable sources, while the other sources either rely on primary sourcing or are unreliable. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 21:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic receives minimal coverage from reliable sources and does not meet the general notability guideline. On another note (not related to my deletion rationale), it reads like an advertisement. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Kids[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I really searched hard for sources that even mention this game, but I came up short. You would think with a cameo in Wreck-It Ralph, there would be something. But Google Books, Scholar, Newspapers.com, and the Wikipedia Library all came up short. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've searched for this before but I also found nothing. Maybe there is something in Japanese press. Timur9008 (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Au[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a journalist with no strong claim to passing our notability criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not automatically notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because their existence is nominally verified by a staff profile on the self-published website of their own employer -- to qualify for an article, a journalist's notability has to be externally validated by third-party sources writing about her, in the context of such things as analyzing the importance of her work or verifying that she won a notable journalism award. But there's no content of that type here, and instead this is just following the depressingly standard template for bad articles about journalists: take staff profile, rephrase it just enough to slide past the copyvio police, source it to itself, and voila.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt Josephine Au from having to be the subject of coverage in reliable sources independent of her own paycheque provider. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A journalist of no significance, fails WP:JOURNALIST. Judekkan (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed the notability test. Nothing really significant from the journalist, being the longest serving member does not confer any notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:48, 29 October 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 West Florida#Later history and legacy. History is under the redirect if someone wants to selectively merge, Star Mississippi 03:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion of British West Florida[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability guidelines. Doesn't have notable enough sources as a micronation to be on Wikipedia, and is heavily inactive. MicroSupporter (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. MicroSupporter (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any news or academic sources pertaining to this, and its current sources are unreliable, fails WP:N. Judekkan (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add, despite the newly introduced sources provided below, they do not add to what is already stated in the article nor introduce new material of significance that could make this article a stand-alone. Judekkan (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another non-notable micronation. Thoroughly fails WP:GNG, as the only sources that exist are its own website and micronation wikis. Curbon7 (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually there are mentions in a number of reliable sources,^[1]^[2] a full page discussion in the recently released Micronations and the search for sovereignty,^[3] discussion in relation to US university student critical thinking skills^[4] and SIGCOV in this Master's Thesis.^[5]

References

^ Clanton, Adam (2008). "The Men Who Would Be King: Forgotten Challenges to U.S. Sovereignty". UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal. 26 (1): 19. doi:10.5070/P8261022205.
^ Tames, Richard (2010). England's forgotten past: the unsung heroes & heroines, valiant kings, great battles & other generally overlooked episodes in our nation's glorious history. London: Thames & Hudson. p. 181. ISBN 9780500515228.
^ Hobbs, Harry; Williams, George (2022). Micronations and the search for sovereignty. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. p. 144. ISBN 9781009150132.
^ Mathson, Stephanie M.; Lorenzen, Michael G. (8 July 2008). "We Won't Be Fooled Again: Teaching Critical Thinking via Evaluation of Hoax and Historical Revisionist Websites in a Library Credit Course". College & Undergraduate Libraries. 15 (1–2): 211–230. doi:10.1080/10691310802177226.
^ Ferguson, Bennie Lee (May 2009). "What is a nation: The micronationalist challenge to traditional concepts of the nation-state". Wichita State University.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsztajn Adam Clanton's source is talking about Emperor Norton and his "Dominion of British West Florida". Not the same as the one in this AfD. Bennie Lee doesn't even mention Florida. So far, references 1 & 5 are no good. I have no access to references 2,3, and 4, but I'm confident the "Dominion of British West Florida" is in reference to Emperor Norton in those sources, not "Robert VII, Duke of Florida" in the article. Especially when it's, so far, actually difficult to find sources pertaining to Robert VII only proves on how the subject is that insignificant. Judekkan (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Judekkan. From Clanton, p. 19, fn 94: "The "Dominion of British West Florida" claims certain portions of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida as part of the British Commonwealth with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state." I'm not sure how it is possible to claim Bennie Lee Ferguson's text has no mention of Florida; there's 18 mentions, with pp.169-172 discussing the "Dominion of British West Florida". The other sources are all about the subject matter, there's no basis to claim otherwise....but in order not to leave the assertion unanswered: in Hobbs and Williams, p.144 begins with: "Several micronations in the United States trace their independence to supposedly improperly executed treaties. One such case is the Dominion of British West Florida which emerged in 2005." Mathson and Lorenzen, p.220: "Then there are the residents of the “Dominion of British West Florida” who are loyal to the British Crown and claim West Florida is legally a part of the British Commonwealth." (Also mentions on p.217 and the appendix). Tames, p.181: "Finally there is the Dominion of British West Florida, which has its own flag and issued currency in honour of the eightieth birthday of ..." Google books only shows that snippet, but I can be "confident" it is not Victoria or George III being discussed (the last British monarchs to live beyond 80) given the previous sentence mentioning "British cars and British motorcycles." Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Goldsztajn, I already know Clanton's source states that, but it was in reference to Emperor Norton's claim. And if refs, 2 & 3 already reiterate what is stated in the article, then those sources do not add anything of significance, despite the reliable publisher. I checked Bennie's source again, didn't see the file on the top-left corner, but that source does a more in depth-overview of what is already stated in the article. So yes, I'm "confident" this article should be deleted as it bears no significance, fails WP:GNG. Judekkan (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Judekkan. You started by saying there are no academic sources and current sources are unreliable. I've provided academic reliable sources which confirm the material in the article (and more). You cannot claim that article content supported by reliable sources is not appropriate. Ferguson did not conduct an interview, he's analysing written communication, providing analysis of the statement made. It is SIGCOV and it is independent, secondary analysis. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very selective Merge to West_Florida#Later_history_and_legacy. This is a nutty guy with a website (that is no longer live apparently), not a notable micronation. I don't see these brief mentions as adequate for an article. Reywas92^Talk 14:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Reywas92 - whether it's a "nutty guy" is irrelevant, it's about the sources. Of the five sources I've provided, I'd agree three can be classified as brief (Clanton, Tames, Mathson & Lorenzen), however, Ferguson is SIGCOV (four pages) and Hobbs & Williams is a one page discussion of the legal basis of the Dominion's claim of sovereignty. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I'm not against a merge, if other editors feel less inclined towards keep. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have access to this,^[1] but Clayton cites pp.139-141, suggesting multipage coverage.

References

^ Ryan, John (2006). Micronations : the Lonely Planet guide to self-proclaimed nations. Footscray, Vic.: Lonely Planet. ISBN 9781741047301.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danial Faris[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about former footballer who had a brief and uneventful career in the Singapore top division. PROD was contested without providing any evidence that the article could satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. I've searched for coverage and found nothing more than match reports (which simply report that he was in the squad) and statistical database entries (there is an article about an airline pilot with a similar name). Every search I've tried indicates this article comprehensively fails the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the Straits Times or other Singaporean sources. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adanna Duru[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

American Idol contestant who came in at 10th place. Not much ample coverage on her music since then, except for a ThisisRnB article last week regarding her debut single and its video (which premiered on BET Soul) and a few (1, 2, 3) articles on Earmilk. Is this enough to establish notability, or is it a case of WP:TOOSOON? - Mooonswimmer 17:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOOSOON. I get hits in Earmilk and stuff from when she was on the tv show, but no charted singles and very early in her career. Needs to get more established as an artist before can consider GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JBN Live[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article on a recently created website. The article was originally created with content and references from the Live India article, relating to events 15 years before this site began operation (subsequently removed). Searches find this site being spammed onto various blogs but no evidence that it has attained notability (WP:NCORP, WP:GNG). AllyD (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Uttar Pradesh. AllyD (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More Indian 'news' site spam. Nate • (chatter) 22:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG - just seems like an article to prop up someone's blog, more or less. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, similar reasoning when I PROD this article, that this failed WP:NCORP. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 11:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 14:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surjeet Singh Thakur[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is entirely sourced to press releases which lack independence from the subject or to articles with just passing mentions. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NPOL. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Himachal Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Joining Politician party does not make you notable. Most of your news links are all PR, The article is entirely sourced to press releases which lack independence from the subject or to articles with just passing mentions. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NPOL Through this page you have tried to promote yourself WP:BIO. Lionfox0909 (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "you"? The subject didn't create the article and isn't participating in this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being state president of a political party don't make anyone notable. Contributor008 (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deletion: This article is included in the current ongoing events in the state of Himachal Pradesh. I believe this must not be deleted currently due to the mentioned reason.456legend(talk) 01:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. State-level president of a political party isn't an "inherently" notable role under WP:NPOL, it's one where he would have to pass WP:GNG on his sourcing — but the sources here aren't genuine third party analytical coverage about him and his work, and instead it's sourced to a mix of short blurbs, press releases self-published by his own political party and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, which is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a person notable for this. And since absolutely anybody who participates in any event at all can always claim to be "included in the current ongoing events", just throwing those words around still isn't grounds for an encyclopedia article in the absence of better sourcing than this either. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per WP:NPOL. President of a political party on a state-level does not confer any notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 14:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Araby, Arizona[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Left behind from a procedural keep consensus fail, it was an isolated rail point that has been engulfed by Yuma's sprawl. I could find nothing supporting a settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Skynxnex (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of anything beyond a rail stop at this location, certainly nothing notable. –dlthewave ☎ 18:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This location is only notable at the local level, if that.TH1980 (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Similar to Mumurva, AZ. No supporting information but this. Idunnox3 (talk) 23:05, 30 October 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. Keep voters need to review Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alley of Angels[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No apparent notability. The sources from the article are almost all unreliable - mostly Russian government media or blogs - and I didn't find any others when I tried searching for more. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources as reflected in the sourcing for the article. Also it tends to only be a passing mention in RS. Mellk (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources as reflected in the sourcing for the article?

Removed due to insufficient coverage by independent reliable sources, as reflected in the source of the article? so probably the problem is that "independent" sources have been saying for 8 years that in Donetsk the Russians are killing themselves, blowing themselves up, that Donetsk is not being shelled with mines, shells, rockets of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but as independent media say, in Donetsk there are just a lot of air conditioners and they keep blowing up Gaiver173 (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It could be simple, dear russian editor.

As this is political theme, it would be better to allow other edits to state opposing views and full data about the memorial. AND not to delete/Undo them.

Let others add other sources.

If they have to fight with you (surely the-one-with-the-only-right-opinion) they would react by deletion nomination.

Stete EXACT number of child victims, if possible with attribution to both sides of the conflict.

And allow the detailed photo of the nameplate with victims.

You know:

this theme is heavily discussed and often edited mainly because of russian propaganda-repaters who use it as "true" - that Ukraine killed much more UA-Russians in this war - compared to Russian army+separatists. Which is not true.

BUT this memorial shows 49 child victims for 8 years of mostly minor fights.

Current 8 months of Russian heavy invasion show 500 child victims (only those confirmed by UN).

It is that simple. Reality, compare both sides/conflict timeframes, not the only "my-opinion-cruel truth".

Surely you can state your own numbers with sources if you know there are more victims, expecially in areas of Donbas Russian military administration, which denied access to UN/OSCE prosecutors.

I think you are intelligent man, and "some child victims", names like "Voloďa, 18 years old" are not enough information to appear as reliable source.

You know, neutrality. Both views on the topic. Palo.hagara (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is obviously about a monument that is real and does exist. Moreover it is relevant enough to keep because it has attracted much attention in the media. It does depict the names of (58?) children dead in the civil war and serves as a memorial to many others. Note there are plenty of examples in Wikipedia of articles of monuments without a single reference -- I am sure we are not thinking of deleting all those which brings the question whether the deletion of this article is a political/cancel culture move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reds1lv (talk • contribs) 16:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles should be improved or deleted on their own merits, according to the guidelines, and have no bearing on this one. —Michael Z. 16:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is deleted based on having no references it creates a serious precedent as many other articles are in the same situation. Reds1lv (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The precedent led to the development of a whole guideline about this at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. —Michael Z. 16:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This subject has had practically no attention in media or other reliable sources, and is only mentioned in passing by the single cited BBC (Russian-language) article. —Michael Z. 16:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. It has been even mentioned in the United Nations (source Permanent Mission of Russia Federation in UN https://russiaun.ru/en/news/170222vers). Reds1lv (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian deputy foreign minister is a primary source, and only mentions the subject in passing. If this is the best you can come up with, it supports the rationale for deletion. —Michael Z. 16:56, 31 October 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 14:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Pogrund[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I admit to being conflicted about this nomination. Pogrund is obviously in a powerful position in journalism, as Whitehall editor of the Sunday Times. That said, I can't find much of any significant coverage him. His name shows up in plenty of bylines (somewhat complicating a search for sources) and in passing mentions a la "according to reporting by Gabriel Pogrund".

There's some coverage centered around his co-authorship of Left Out: The Inside Story of Labour Under Corbyn. The thirty or so sources that mention him in this context range from full reviews to "Further reading"-style nods, but none contain more information about Pogrund than something like "Sunday Times journalist Gabriel Pogrund ...". The one such source I couldn't access was "Politicians vote for best books, reveal summer reading lists" in The Australian, but I doubt it has what we're looking for. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and United Kingdom. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple award winning journalist (British Press Awards Young Journalist of the Year, Stern Fellow, British Journalism Award winner) and senior editor at a major national newspaper. Uhooep (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep should be expanded a bit, but passes notability. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 15:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can see the issue here in that there is much less coverage of him than I would expect, but he is a noted journalist and, as noted, he has achieved recognition in the form of awards for his work so I think should have an article. Dunarc (talk) 22:50, 29 October 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. Star Mississippi 14:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ojai Playwrights Conference[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORG. Primary subject of multiple independent sources with in-depth significant coverage. Including the The New York Times and Los Angeles Times pieces cited in the article. Independent significant coverage of the conference is sustained in Playbill, such as [5], [6] Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Playbill references are trivial mentions (the first in particular), the second is substantial. I also note the lack of inline citations to help us see what is sourced from where. Also not having an online source for the New York Times is also not helping; I can't see what came from there and I can't verify it online. Leaning Delete unless we can find decent sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two articles that are online sources would almost be better used to write about the Robert Egan person than this conference, it's mentioned in passing that he works there. We have multiple trivial mentions, one ok one and a few we can't check to see what they say and how good they are. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: "Also not having an online source for the New York Times is also not helping." Do you not have Wikipedia Library access? Everything that I added without a url came from there. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Organizations, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be a significant annual event that has developed important works. The "Further Reading" cites need to be moved inline. I moved over some cites that were in the Fun Home and Other Desert Cities articles about the Pulitzer. I removed some vague, repetitive and peacock terms -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG with fairly significant coverage in papers of record. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are abundant sources for it avail via Wikipedia Library and on the web; I added a couple to make this clear to the prodder but just tip of the iceberg. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:27, 28 October 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 14:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Valentine[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV. The article may have been created by the subject themselves. vistadan 14:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NAUTHOR. I could find no independent reviews or other kinds of sources on this person or her works. Additionally, her books are all published by Water Forest Press Publishing which the author founded. In effect these books are self published. Not sure if the press itself is notable either.4meter4 (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources found, every hit is for a BBC presenter with the same name. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Google search found articles covering the subject's name change, which hardly make her notable. Badly fails WP:GNG and does not pass WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NAUTHOR. Agree this is probably autobiography of non-notable writer. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the claim that the article was created by a subject is not based on any argument by the nominating editor, the page does not deserve to be in Wikipedia as failing to meet basic notability requirements listed by the editors in the comments above. Idunnox3 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While her work may exist, a failure of WP:SIGCOV. She is not notable enough for inclusion. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:20, 1 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!} 06:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dual-character concept[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage beyond trivial mentions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - agree on no WP:SIGCOV, looks like only one non-comprehensive result on JSTOR for "dual-character concept" from 2018. - car chasm (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: plenty of sources giving significant coverage on Google Scholar:[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. And there seem to be even more, this was just from the first few pages of results. Alduin2000 (talk) 11:20, 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!} 04:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the sources listed above. Also found a 2022 book [16] with a significant section on "A Framework for Understanding Dual Character Concepts". Skynxnex (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really can't understand how an article on this topic in the philosophy of cognition has got to AFD at all. The article has three good references cited in-line which were there at the time of the nomination. Two are making use of the concept and explaining aspects. Are they thought inappropriate? A third provides evidence for the concept.[17] An article explaining the nature of the concept has been put forward above.[18] And, also pointed out above, there is a whole book chapter, chapter three of Experimental Philosophy of Identity and the Self.[19] I am also only finding one reference on JSTOR but I don't think that matters. Thincat (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Suleiman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any significant coverage to indicate WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. He exists in a few football databases but this would not meet requirements. Stadium Astro is only a single passing mention. A Malaysian source search returned nothing of note. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:17, 1 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 13:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bates Cosse[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertising company fails WP:NCORP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and Nigeria. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nik Omar Nik Abdul Aziz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was deleted through AfD back in 2019, and nothing has changed since then. Still does not meet GNG or NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear WP:NPOL fail. Mccapra (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing WP:NPOL. He has not been elected to any position that confers notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:38, 1 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 13:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Westworld (American band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail NBAND and GNG. Finding sources is made difficult by the fact that there is also a British band by this name (and the TV show), but ultimately, I see no evidence of notability. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 11:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 11:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Note that searching is tough due to lots of other things called Westworld, so searching in conjunction with member names or song titles makes a difference. Despite having members that are notable elsewhere, this group never really got noticed by reliable media and their albums never got any pro reviews that I can find. They got some bloggy interviews like these: [20], [21], [22], but I wouldn't call those significant. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Redirects are nominated for deletion at WP:RFD, not AFD. Will create the nomination there. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dictator of Belarus[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Propaganda redirect that violates NPOV policy.--Madame Necker (talk) 09:44, 27 October 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 October 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - should be at WP:RfD instead Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lol, no. This isn't a propaganda platform. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 27 October 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 Oxford University Cricket Club players#O. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard O'Grady[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect based on replies below: Fails WP:NCRIC. References are behind a pay wall and hence cannot verify Iaintbrdpit (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and England. Iaintbrdpit (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ATD. O'Grady is included in List of Oxford University Cricket Club players#O and that would be the best redirect target. BoJó | talk UTC 10:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Oxford University Cricket Club players#O as above. Fails all criteria for a standalone article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested per the long standing consensus that where suitable lists exist articles about senior cricketers should be redirected if no sourcing is found online. Some sort of sourcing almost certainly exists offline in Tonbridge, Surrey and Oxford sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Oxford University Cricket Club players#O Fails GNG and the updated WP:NCRIC guidelines, but there's a suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Oxford University Cricket Club players#O as a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:30, 30 October 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!} 09:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Sajjad[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person not-notable, amateur snooker players are generally not-notable and this one has never won a major title. Becoming runner-up at the world amateur is a start, but doesn't meet WP:GNG Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cue sports. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete Not a Notable Person fail WP:GNG. Lionfox0909 (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lionfox0909, can you explain to me when Soft Deletion is possible? This is a decision that has to be made by the AFD closer, not the participants. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well per [23] the statement which makes more sense in this case is ‘’’soft deletion should be used whenever an article is in a state that does not merit inclusion’’’ as I feel only [24] this is an RS that is why I wrote it as a soft delete 🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of matches for "Muhammad Sajjad" snooker can be found in the Wikipedia Library, but looking through the first page of results, the level of coverage in not enough to argue that the subject meets GNG. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:58, 28 October 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!} 07:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vere (1803 ship)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have a name of a ship. That's it. We don't know if it ever sailed, and if so what happened to it. No idea why this was created. If there was an A7 speedy deletion criterion for ships, this would be gone as having no claim to importance or notability whatsoever. Fram (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The whole content of the article appears to be details of one voyage taken from a book that is merely listing ship's voyages; in turn based on one item from Lloyds Register. That meets verification requirements, but does not alter the fact that the ship and its voyage are wholly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly non-notable. We should not be copying databases as the sole basis for articles. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:46, 30 October 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 there is a consensus here to keep this article. That's all that I'm sure about. What happens next--Merger, Rename, Redirect--is left to the editors here to discuss on the article talk page. However, if nothing is done, I think this article will be renominated in the near future. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural evolution[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

TL;DR would be that this is a fork of sociocultural evolution, and that there are no reliable sources that support differentiating the concept of "cultural evolution" from "sociocultural evolution". The article was created by experts (see Talk:Sociocultural_evolution#Merge_Cultural_evolution_and_Cultural_selection_theory_here for context and short discussion), sadly, they gave up early, before finishing this. Worse, they effectively created what read back then and still does as a fork of our older article, with significant overlaps in content. The article states (without a ref) that "Cultural evolution, historically also known as sociocultural evolution", which still implies it's the same topic, but that the name "cultural evolution" is more commonly used than "sociocultural evolution" (perhaps). I suggested a merge, but the discussion never went far (link above). As there is some content to merge, I'd like to suggest reviewing this deletion discussion as a "forced merge", with the suggested result of, well, merge, and the use of relevant template (not Template:Merge from AfD, but I can't find the one that is used to indicate merge outcome of AfD; if you know which one it is, please add it to the relevant templates list there). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the deletion warning. Yes, the differentia need to be explicit. I am referring this to the Cultural Evolution Society, said experts who created this page, as they are best placed to make the distinction. AndySLord (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A merge seems reasonable, but it sounds like the name should probably be Cultural evolution, not Sociocultural evolution. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy has Cultural evolution but not the other. Lijil (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Supporting Lijil, I looked for the topic "Cultural evolution", "Sociocultural" never would occur to me. Cgmusselman (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to comment. The term cultural evolution is much more common, yes. I've no objection to the merge being targed there, as long as redirects persist, and the less common name is mentioned in the lead. Although one should take a look at the alt names, definitions, and such, in the lead of Sociocultural evolution. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's unclear to me what the suggestion is, what page is being merged into which page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the discussion on the talkpage from 2017, I find the contribution from @Joe Roe: quite convincing as a non-specialist. I don't know the solution, but it seems better to thrash it out on the talkpages of the respective articles than here on AfD. JMWt (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but yeah, do something. Thanks for the ping JMWt. Like I tried to explain back then, the current school of cultural evolution and historic theories of sociocultural evolution (in reality more likely called "social evolution" or "cultural evolution", but we have it there per WP:NATDIS) are two very distinct intellectual traditions, that basically only share a name. Both are notable; for the current school of cultural evolution theory, see e.g. [25][26][27]. I agree that the article is not in good shape. The attempt by a group of experts to write the article was basically a failure, serving only to attract people unfamiliar with our policies and a tendency to write overly technical prose that makes it difficult for most people to understand what is being talked about. But as always that is not a reason to remove an article on a notable and encyclopaedic topic. If we're going to merge this article with anything, it should be with dual inheritance theory and/or cultural selection theory, which are actually about related topics, not just ones sharing the same name. Or, as a very belated reply to Piotrus (sorry, don't know what happened there), I think moving it and making the title cultural evolution a disambiguation page is also a good idea. – Joe (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While you make an interesting argument, the admin or editor who closes this discussion has a limited range of possible options available to them and this discussion is as clear as mud. Can you sum up what you think should happen with this specific article in 5 words or less? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" :) – Joe (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe Moving it where? What article and to what name? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural evolution somewhere, as you suggested in 2017. I don't think there's an obvious WP:NATDIS and ... maybe Darwinian cultural evolution? It's not exactly the common name, but is used by these sources for example: [28][29][30]. Cultural evolution (disambiguation) already exists, by the way, so it'd just be a case of swapping the titles. – Joe (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There is lots of discussion but we need simple outcome opinions that a closer can carry out here. If this article is Kept, then you can make editing choices to carry out your vision of what this article should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the above analyses (which I will trust more than my own muddled understanding of the historical antecedents). Sounds as if some artful renaming and disambiguating could sort out the title overlap, and then the article could be overhauled on the hoof. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:07, 1 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!} 07:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nayani[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

orphan page with no refs. I can't find anything that suggests this is a notable thing - in fact the only things I've found are to do with individuals who have the name and characters in films or novels. Be interested to hear if anyone else can find anything. JMWt (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Kpg jhp jm 08:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 13 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!} 08:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep sources can be found if some editor works on article. There's a greater chance if article stays. Muneebll (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm unable to find any sources on this. I've found some passing references to a clan called Nayani Kula but this would be based in South India and not the region the article states so likely not the same. Open to changing my !vote if someone else finds anything. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:59, 30 October 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 Randy Feltface. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heath McIvor[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally proposed at Talk:Randy_Feltface#Merger_proposal but didn't realise this would be the better place for it to actually get attention and had forgotten about the proposal until just now. As I wrote there, I couldn't find much coverage of McIvor outside of his work with the Randy Feltface character and I'm not convinced he should have a separate article. The coverage already here is weak enough that I don't see a notability pass, and the info is small enough that it could be crammed into a section of the Feltface article. QuietHere (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, Entertainment, and Australia. QuietHere (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, here are all the changes that have been made to the McIvor article since my proposal. No new sources added so everything I wrote in that initial proposal still applies just the same. QuietHere (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose it'd be good form to tag DH85868993 here seeing as they were the sole respondent (and opposed) to that proposal, though with the note that I still disagree with their reasoning as I already stated at the time. QuietHere (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping QuietHere. I'm not overly fussed whether the article is kept or not. DH85868993 (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Randy Feltface. I do not think coverage of McIvor's work with Sammy J meets WP:N. Spinifex&Sand) 00:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It did win an award at what is apparently "the second-largest international comedy festival in the world" so I think that's at least worth a mention, plus it's sourced directly from the festival's site. I also think his TV credits might be worth moving over, and some bio details are WP:PRIMARY from McIvor's site so those might be okay to pull. But I won't be bothered by a redirect if consensus says that stuff's not worth saving. QuietHere (talk) 00:39, 22 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!} 03:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Randy Feltface as per QuietHere's comments above. No need for seperate articles in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 19:28, 27 October 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 03:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Lands[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This game is not notable, with the only sources being first party from its creator, and the games own website (except for one to its own Github page). Under none of Wikipedia's policies should this game ever have been considered notable enough for its own article. According to its own website, the most players that have ever been online simultaneously was under a thousand, and its got virtually 0 coverage from credible sources. Honestly, its astonishing that it has made it through two deletion nominations in the past, with this being its 3rd. Some need to understand that just because you play a niche game, and enjoy it, doesn't mean it is notable enough to warrant its own article. You enjoy it, that's great. You do you, but it shouldn't have its own page just because you like it. Cr@$h3d@t@^{t@1k t0 m3} 02:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should clarify, I am for voting for delete. Cr@$h3d@t@^{t@1k t0 m3} 02:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of reliable sources. Doing a quick google search shows no reviews from any review aggregator, no reviews from IGN nor any other big game reviewer. Lack of notability aswell. Ray 04:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need to do some searching before I can safely say delete, but I can easily say that nothing on the prior two AFDs showed any valid path to meeting the GNG. I can't believe it survived twice in the past with such weak sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 03:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sufficient independent coverage to meet notability. It just reads like a summary. Does not discuss significance, reception, etc, and even if it did, there's no independent sources at all for it.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Quaemenelimbus
http://www.eternal-lands.com/	The website of the game, written by the developer.	The website has good information about the game, and is written by the developer.	The game is addressed in detail as per WP:GNG.	✘ No
https://www.el-wiki.net/Wraith (moved to here)	A website directly related to the game and its players.	Just like Wikipedia, anybody can edit this, and it can have unreliable information.	The game is addressed in detail as per WP:GNG.	✘ No
https://massivelyop.com/2022/01/07/open-source-fantasy-mmo-eternal-lands-releases-a-laundry-list-of-client-updates-and-features/	~ This blog is still active today, and is not related with the game. Seems to be an MMORPG blog though, so still related.	~ Seems to be news reporting and opinion.	This only details the updates to the game and only gives a brief summary.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 01:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I took a look at Google Scholar to see if the game has been significant in scholarship on MMOGs as an early example. I did find a few references of it, but only about the cheating that happened in the game, which is discussed in the postmortem and is also referenced in the Wikipedia page Cheating in video games. The scholarship is all in Russian, but that's OK according to WP:NONENG. The scholarly coverage might make the cheating in the game notable, but not the game itself. Probably the coverage in Cheating in video games is sufficient. Lijil (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:lijil
Bylyeva D.S., Nam T.A. The laws of existence in virtual worlds: construction and violation ^[1]	~ A scholarly paper published in a Russian journal, Philosophy and Humanities in Information Society. As far as I can tell (from Google translate and English text in the journal) this is a legitimate scholarly journal, though run by a university not a for-profit mega publisher like Elsevier. This does not mean the journal is not good, but as I can't read Russian I am not 100% sure.	The paper seems decent. It cites the postmortem that is already linked in the article. It discusses the CHEATING that occurred in the game.	The article does not discuss the game as a whole, but does discuss the cheating where early players had a "get-rich-quick" opportunity, causing conflict between players.	✘ No
Mention in book Video Gaming	Published by Pedia Press, says the book is edited by "Wikipedians"	Presumably just rehashes whatever's already in Wikipedia so useless for assessing notability.	rief citation of postmortem, referencing cheating.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

^ Sergeevna, Bylyeva Darya; Anatolyevna, Nam Tatyana (2018). "Законы существования в виртуальных мирах: построение и нарушение" [The laws of existence in virtual worlds: construction and violation]. Философия и гуманитарные науки в информационном обществе (Philosophy and the Humanities in the Information Society) (4): 20–28.

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. Academic Challenger (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chazz Anderson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. Joeykai (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sources already in the article, plus others like this, this, and this. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of stories both talking about him and his college career very specifically and many additional mentions, even beyond those in the article and listed above. Skynxnex (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and there appears to be significant coverage. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does not, in fact, fail GNG. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. This already part of an earlier AFD that includes it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Business Organizations Code[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Taking this as AFD as PROD is contested. In my opinion, this does not satisfy WP:GNG. While the business code for a state obviously existed, I didn't think that it required its own standalone Wikipedia article. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, United States of America, and Texas. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. Most of these codes are nominated for deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Agriculture Code. This article should not have been nominated separately. Please close this AfD and add this article to the other AfD. [For the avoidance of doubt: The Code does satisfy GNG. This is not surprising, since it is more or less the whole of corporate law in Texas. This article could easily have been named Corporate law in Texas, because that is essentially what it is about.] James500 (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Three votes had already been made in the other AFD so it is not inappapropriate whatsoever not to add to that bundle but sure we can delete it there too. This merely names the titles of the code but is not actually about corporate law, which would be a prose article about the contents and applications of law rather than a list. Reywas92^Talk 04:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close.. This article is already nominated in a different AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Transportation Code[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Taking this as AFD as PROD is contested. In my opinion, this does not satisfy WP:GNG. While the transportation code for a state obviously existed, I didn't think that it required its own standalone Wikipedia article. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, United States of America, and Texas. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. This article is already nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Agriculture Code. It should not have been nominated separately. Please close this AfD and add this article to the other AfD. James500 (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There was equal-ish support between the redirects/merges and keeps. Further, the redirects were split on the redirect target. Further discussion about what to do with this article can continue on the talk page Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium Freeway (Wisconsin)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source listed for the unbuilt portion is self-published, and the existing portion of the route is covered by two other existing articles (Wisconsin Highway 175 and Wisconsin Highway 341). -happy 5214 01:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United States of America. -happy 5214 01:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wisconsin Highway 175 since the current extent of Stadium Freeway is part of that route, no need for a separate article. Dough4872 01:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with that is that the highway has been oft-designated under various numbers and the current talk is that the 175 designation may be removed as a current plan sees it converted to a surface boulevard. Then there's Wisconsin Highway 341, which both no longer exists and has been split into two different municipal designations; Brewers Blvd. in Milwaukee, but remaining Miller Parkway in West Milwaukee because of that town not wanting to fall into Constant Stadium Renaming Syndrome and replacing signs every few years. It is a mess though, that much I completely agree with. Nate • (chatter) 04:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should merge Wisconsin Highway 341 into the WI 175 article since the entire extent of WI 341 was replaced with WI 175. Even if Stadium Freeway is converted into a boulevard and no longer is part of WI 175, the history of it should still be covered in the WI 175 article since it was once part of it. Dough4872 12:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Freeways of Milwaukee since there's an entry there. (full disclosure: I started that page) –Fredddie ™ 18:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting to see if any more sources come up but I would lean towards redirecting this somewhere. --Rs chen 7754 20:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment— A quick search for "stadium freeway" milwaukee on Newspapers.com limited to sources in the state of Wisconsin turns up 607 matches. Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is uncertainty over where this article might be redirected to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still needs to be some consesnsus on a Redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are gobs of articles, under this name, in the main Milwaukee papers that newspapers.com does not have (1,261 total hits), and route numbers are rarely used in this historical coverage. It looks like, at some point, it had North and South legs. The history seems quite long and involved, and I'd be willing to partner with someone with more experience in this topic area to identify needed newspaper sourcing and clip it from GenealogyBank or NewsBank. For instance, [31] [32] [33] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sammi Brie and Mrschimpf (great to see your name again Nate!). Would gladly take you on the partnership offer Sammi. -- Dolotta (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified by Sammi Brie. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 15:35, 27 October 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. Nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Hanson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by a blocked user and sources are not independent to the subject Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is now a different page, a disambiguation page, at this title. PamD 07:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the article has been redirected during the deletion process since and I do not know how to proceed here correctly.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradise Chronicle: At this point the thing to do would be to state that you are withdrawing the nomination, since it is no longer applicable to the content on the page. An admin will take care of it from there. BD2412 T 02:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I withdraw my nomination then.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Joe Hanson (soccer) exists, as does the redirect Joe Hanson (comedian). I don't see that redirecting this name to a different spelling Joseph Hansen is sensible. Presumably the question is whether the comedian redirect is OK, as she now uses the name Lily Hanson, but the "Joe" name appears in that article so it seems a relevant redirect. PamD 07:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted it to a disambiguation page. PamD 07:22, 27 October 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.

[1] Clanton, Adam (2008). "The Men Who Would Be King: Forgotten Challenges to U.S. Sovereignty". UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal. 26 (1): 19. doi:10.5070/P8261022205.

[2] Tames, Richard (2010). England's forgotten past: the unsung heroes & heroines, valiant kings, great battles & other generally overlooked episodes in our nation's glorious history. London: Thames & Hudson. p. 181. ISBN 9780500515228.

[3] Hobbs, Harry; Williams, George (2022). Micronations and the search for sovereignty. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. p. 144. ISBN 9781009150132.

[4] Mathson, Stephanie M.; Lorenzen, Michael G. (8 July 2008). "We Won't Be Fooled Again: Teaching Critical Thinking via Evaluation of Hoax and Historical Revisionist Websites in a Library Credit Course". College & Undergraduate Libraries. 15 (1–2): 211–230. doi:10.1080/10691310802177226.

[5] Ferguson, Bennie Lee (May 2009). "What is a nation: The micronationalist challenge to traditional concepts of the nation-state". Wichita State University.

[6] Ryan, John (2006). Micronations : the Lonely Planet guide to self-proclaimed nations. Footscray, Vic.: Lonely Planet. ISBN 9781741047301.

[7] Sergeevna, Bylyeva Darya; Anatolyevna, Nam Tatyana (2018). "Законы существования в виртуальных мирах: построение и нарушение" [The laws of existence in virtual worlds: construction and violation]. Философия и гуманитарные науки в информационном обществе (Philosophy and the Humanities in the Information Society) (4): 20–28.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[1]