Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 20	September 22 >

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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cleva North America[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, lacks any secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Loafiewa (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loafiewa (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added one reference [1] but the article need few more reliable references. Fifthapril (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Chicago Tribune reference is the only one I see coming close to WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DElete' as lacking coverage. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - except a post on Chicago Tribune, I couldn't find anything significant about this company. Haueirlan (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the Chicago Tribune source is not the WP:SIGCOV about Cleva that is required for WP:ORGCRIT. The source is based on a press release and WP:ORGCRIT says "Examples of dependent coverage that is not sufficient to establish notability: ... any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent source". Also, the article does not describe what is notable about the company. And I found no other independenat reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nuvei[edit]

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

Definitely does not pass NCOPR criteria; overlinked with promotional and spam websites. WP:COI though template has been recently removed without any reason Dark Juliorik (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets NCORP. The quality of the article has declined since I created it but this company is notable. This company is now even WP:LISTED and "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies". This is certainly the case here because this company was notable even before it had its current name.[1][2][3] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitant Keep – More should be cleaned up, but they seem to have significant and diverse coverage in regional news sites (e.g. CBC coverage of IPO, Globe and Mail coverage of "one of the largest annual pay packages in Canadian history", and Toronto Star coverage of battle with short seller. Pegnawl (talk) 15:09, 27 September 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'm closing this as Keep. Non-English sources might make it difficult for English speakers to evaluate the value of existing sources but shouldn't be a factor in deciding whether to Keep or Delete an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alyona Tymoshenko[edit]

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

Does not pass ANYBIO, looks like advertisement and a COI. Dark Juliorik (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No English sources, unsure about the Ukrainian ones. Willing to revisit if we can confirm how notable the sources are. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These sources seem to be reliable [4], [5], [6], but it would be more correct to publish the article in the Ukrainian version first.--Tysska (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary. TolWol (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reliable sources [7], [8], [9] Mykytal (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- sourcing is now adequate. Ingratis (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Santuré Boixadé[edit]

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

Non-notable ski mountaineer. Before search doesn't bring up any third party sources to establish notability and has no medal record. Doesn't come close to meeting WP:GNG. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 15:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Andorra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - Contains sources indicating some nobility. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhafiz-e-Pakistan, I looked at the references in the article... One cite is a dead link, another looks like a cite that doesn't exist anymore, and the other looks to be a stats page... Are there other sources you can provide? SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 13:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spf121188 There is little information, I agree, but it is at least a bit notable. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NATHLETE/GNG by the looks of it. "It is at least a bit notable" is not a very compelling argument.-KH-1 (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. BilletsMauves^€500 11:19, 22 September 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 23:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop Linux Summit[edit]

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

I can find no independent coverage of this rather short-lived (2003-2006) technical conference, other than this short article from the now-defunct DesktopLinux.com, which seems to have been run by eWeek. That counts for something, but I don't think it's enough to indicate notability. Yaron K. (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, this has been a stub since at least 2009. Second, I can find some sources from the time and they are mainly about in-fighting among Linux vendors over the nature of the conference. While that itself may be of interest to some, it doesn't appear to me to be significant enough for an article. The conference itself seems to have petered out on its own. Lamona (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable conference. I'd guess that a not insignificant amount of online coverage is from small websites that are now defunct and can't be found anymore. SWinxy (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was covered in some depth by Linux Weekly News at the time, as they do for many conferences, but having had a look through their reports there wasn't anything remarkable about it. Adam Sampson (talk) 21:47, 23 September 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 Trentino Tyrolean Autonomist Party. If you would prefer a different Merge target, please discuss it on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trentino Autonomists[edit]

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

Small party relevant exclusively in the history of the Trentino Tyrolean Autonomist Party, from which it split and which it subsequently re-joined. The page probably also contains incorrect information: I have not found in any source that Integral Autonomy has merged into the party. Furthermore, this party has never autonomously participated in any election, and the sources on it are almost totally non-existent. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject was a party in its own right. In the 2003 joint list between the Trentino Autonomists and the Trentino Tyrolean Autonomist Party, the former played a big role. It is not fair to consider this party just as a faction. At some point, the South Tyrolean People's Party chose the Trentino Autonomists as their main ally in Trentino. Also there is no doubt that Casagranda's Integral Autonomy and Muraro's regional section of Italian Renewal were merged into the party (see [10]). It may be difficult to find sources on the web, but the party clearly existed and deserves an article of its own. We should avoid recentism and have historical perspective. This said, if regrettably there is no consensus on keeping the article, I hope we can at least merge it into Trentino Tyrolean Autonomist Party or, more correctly, into Integral Autonomy (1996). --Checco (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco: the source you linked (the party's website) doesn't even mention Integral Autonomy (a party that wasn't founded in 1996 and that had a different path, but this is another matter). This party has little more than existed, the only acceptable solution would be a merger with Trentino Tyrolean Autonomist Party.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Popular Autonomy Braganza (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Checco and Braganza: I have to partially correct some of my statements above: it seems that the party has participated in some minor municipal elections. It is not clear how the Regional Autonomist Federation (previously: Integral Autonomy) collaborated with Trentino Autonomists: it seems that Trentino Autonomists was represented in two joint groups: one with Italian Renewal (which later became "Trentino Autonomists - Genziane"), the other with the Regional Autonomist Federation (which later became Popular Autonomy) ([11]). However, I confirm that the most suitable merger would be with the Trentino Tyrolean Autonomist Party: its split and subsequent rapprochement with the PATT (described in the PATT website itself [12]) make in my view the two topics joinable.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Trentino Tyrolean Autonomist Party. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 21:30, 25 September 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 Kerala cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Aaron[edit]

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

Subject does not seem to be notable and this article looks like yet another database style entry about a sports player whose only claim to fame is that they competed in a sport once. However, Google searches for "sandy aaron" are ruined by results about Grease (musical) (as there is apparently a character named Sandy and an actor named Aaron) so I may have missed something. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 19:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Cricket, and India. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 19:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I usually wish WP:TNT on these database-style entries. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, notable enough for a decent sized (i.e. not one line) Wisden obituary. This is really not a given in these sorts of circumstances.

Given that he was Indian the chances are that we're not going to find written sources on the internet. No doubt they exist, but we're just not going to be able to find them and with only four appearances it's not as if there's a strong case for a keep based on IAR here. So, this is a really, really obvious redirect with a partial merge per WP:ATD-M (note to close: policy, not a guideline). The target would be List of Kerala cricketers - he played 3 of his 4 first-class matches for Kerala and Travancore-Cochin only played a total of 7 f-c matches in total, so on balance this makes most sense. The merge will be a short note added to the list article to summarise his life with references from Wisden and CricketArchive I imagine. Redirection is a long established consensus decision in cases such as these going back years.

I've added him to the list. I note that his brother's article was boldly redirected to the list some time ago. This is a good thing in the circumstances - by redirecting we retain the attribution, sources and history should those elusive sources emerge. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Kerala cricketers As BST says he made the majority of appearances for Kerala, and despite the Wisden Obituary there hasn't been much more found at this stage, so fails WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, as above, to List of Kerala cricketers - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 21:41, 27 September 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. I am sure that this closure will not be satisfying to the participants but, reading through this discussion, there seems to be more words of accusations about editors and the author of one source used than an evaluation of the state of the articles. There is not even a consensus about whether or not the subjects of these articles are hoaxes or not.

But this is definitely not using "No consensus" in lieu of a "Keep" decision. I think you'd have a more productive and focused discussion if there was a return to AFD with these articles unbundled so participants could spend time assessing the notability of each individual event instead of discussing contributors or speculating on their motivations and points-of-view. I think it would also be helpful if you posted announcements of future AFD discussions on related WikiProjects, like Military History, on the next go-round. We need more subject matter experts here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ash-Shihr[edit]

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

I hereby request the deletion of Battle of Ash-Shihr, and I have decided to bundle in the same request the pages

because they were all created by the same user and pertain to the same topic.

The articles proposed to be deleted, are either completely bogus in the case of the first three or fail the notability test in the case of the latter two to warrant pages of their own.

The first three never actually happened despite citing sources which are mostly in Turkish anyway. In the case of the first, the Portuguese never attacked Shihr in 1520, but the Portuguese commander Manuel de Vasconcelos did attack the city in 1532, defeating the Ottoman forces on the occasion. In the case of the second, the Portuguese governor of India never attacked Jeddah in 1520, nor did any Portuguese ever attack it after 1517. In the case of the third, the Portuguese never occupied Kamaran in order to be "completely destroyed and expelt" as implied by the article. The last two articles consist of minor naval actions, that would be more appropriately contained entirely within the page Sefer Reis. Wareno (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Portugal, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:VERIFIABILITY. Hello, firstly I would like to note that the user who nominated these pages for deletion has been disruptively editing and pov pushing on one of the articles he nominated for deletion. He removed sourced content (violation of WP:CRV) and replaced it with sources that have nothing to do with the battle. He removed the sources that support the Ottoman victory and disregarded the fact that the date of the battle in 1531 is supported by three in page references and replaced it with sources that refer to a different event in 1532. This edit is what I am referring to.

The first battle Battle of Ash-Shihr occurred in 1531 this battle is described by historian Yilmaz Oztuna and an attack on Ash-Shihr in 1531 is mentioned by this source. You can find the accessible version here.

As for the second page Siege of Jeddah an attack on Jeddah in the year 1520 is mentioned by the same source as above and as for the other in page reference historian Ekrem Şama states that the Portuguese attack was repelled.

For the third page the Expedition to Kamaran the event is clearly supported by the accessible in page reference by historian Yilmaz Oztuna. Yilmaz Oztuna is a historian and Turkish sources are allowed to be used (see WP:NOENG).

For the fourth page Battle of Kamaran the battle is literally described in detail by historian Giancarlo Casale and is also supported by a source by historian Daniel R. Headrick. Please see pp 67-68 of this source. Historian Giancarlo Casale mentions this as another victory of Sefer Reis against the Portuguese under the command of Christovao Pereira Homem.

As for the last page, again, this event is described in detail by historian Giancarlo Casale. See page 62 here where Giancarlo Casale states that the Portuguese were defeated under their commander Luiz Figueira.

These pages all satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY, they are clearly not a hoax and are all supported by their in page references which are all WP:RS, this is clearly just an example of WP:JDLI. I’d also like to add that Turkish historians are allowed to be cited on Wikipedia per WP:NOENG, I find it strange that the user questions Turkish historians but not Portuguese historians (see here), especially coming from a user whose edits are mostly related to Portuguese history. Again clearly a case of POV pushing and WP:JDLI. Regards Kabz15 (talk)

CommentI passed several of these at NPP. I don’t have time to write at length now but in my view the articles are not hoaxes. There is some doubt as to their notability as individual battles in my mind, but not strong enough to AfD or draftify them. My hope was that the Ottoman and Portugal WikiProjects would develop them. They are supported by sources but looking more closely now I am less sure about how reliable those sources are. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically it is odd that the sourcing is so predominantly Turkish, which makes me wonder whether errors by one historian have perhaps been erroneously replicated in later works. I think tagging for factual accuracy is fine but I’m not persuaded that the best thing to do here is delete. Mccapra (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: I similarly saw some of these at NPP, and reviewed them. I am also somewhat concerned about the reliability, especially given how some of the sources (See below) are obviously biased. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: have you by chance looked, and I do mean actually looked, into the links I provided, since you say you are "unsure"? I'm confident it will help your case. You hoped the Portugal WikiProject would help develop them, but see how the creator responded when I tried to. Make no mistake however, because as far as the first three pages are concerned, there's no room for "in my view" here, the events they describe are entirely ficticious, no more, no less. The latter two are clearly a case of one user trying to pass very small things as very big things, that would be more conveniently contained into one single page elsewhere as recommended, however the creator insists on their verifyability and dumping random sources onto them when its their notability that's in dispute.Wareno (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm only surprised to see that Turkish historians are this inclined to make up battles. Let's see what other authors say:

For Battle of Ash-Shihr no such thing happened. As told to the user, it is not in accordance to any evidence, the Portuguese never attacked the city in 1531, the Portuguese commander Manuel de Vasconcelos only attacked it once in 1532 and the Ottomans were defeated, as can be read here for example, but the user has aggressively rejected any input.

For Siege of Jeddah (1520), the Portuguese commander Diogo Lopes de Sequeira sailed a fleet into the Red Sea in 1520 but never even reached Jeddah as can be fully read here. The British scholar R. B. Serjeant wrote in page 171 of his The Portuguese Off the South Arabian Coast: Hadrami Chronicles: "This is the expedition of Diogo Lopes de Sequeira. Gois, gives the composition of the Portuguese fleet as 26 sail, comprising 11 large ships (naos), 2 galleons, 5 galleys, 4 square-rigged ships, 2 brigantines, and 2 caravels. (Some of the aforegoing are only dictionary translations.) The ‘very large galliot’ seems to be what Barros, ill. iii. 10, calls um bargantim per a recados (a brigantine for provisions and equipment). They did not land at al-'Ârah, but the San Antonio struck a reef there (Castanheda, v. 23, and F. Alvarez, Verdadeira Informaçâo . . . (Lisboa, 1889), p. 5). Presents intended for the Emperor of Abyssinia were lost with this vessel, which caused the envoys trouble and embarrassment when they reached the Abyssinian court. De Sequeira had been ordered to sail to Jeddah, but abandoned the attempt on account of contrary winds, and the Portuguese then stood across to Massawa. After leaving Massawa they burnt what there was to be found on Dahlak".

For Expedition to Kamaran, it's a myth that the Portuguese ever occupied Kamaran Island. Turkish sources fail to mention the names of any Portuguese commanders, casualties, or their strenght which obviously isn't possible. All this user does is push sources in Turkish which fall very short of WP:RELIABILITY and WP:NPOV.

As for the last two pages, I'll leave the contributors to decide if they are noteworthy enough to keep. The user seems to think I challenge their veracity, which I don't, I only challenge the veracity of the first three.

I also wonder if this user isn't a sockpuppet of this user due to their very similar editing patterns. Wareno (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’ve already mentioned that for the siege of Jeddah in 1520 other than the source from a Turkish historian which is admissible per WP:NOENG this source which is entirely focused on the failed Portuguese dominions in the Red Sea states that the Portuguese made an attempt to attack Jeddah that year in 1520 “attempt to attack Jeddah”. This same source states that an attack was made on Ash-Shihr in 1531 which is also supported by a source by a Turkish historian which again is admissible. I’ve already posted the link in my previous comment where you can access the pdf. Claiming that the Kamaran expedition is a myth is a WP:FRINGETHEORY, the page is supported by a source from Turkish historian Yilmaz Oztuna. As for claiming Turkish historians are making up battles that just sounds absurd, you are obviously not even checking the sources I’m providing you that support the dates of the events since you keep on repeating the same thing over and over again about these battles not happening despite already being given valid evidence to support the attack in 1531 and the attack in 1520. Also the source that I’ve provided that support these dates is very relevant and entirely focused on the failed Portuguese dominions in the Red Sea. As for accusing me of being a sockpuppet of another user your personal attack had been noted. Regards Kabz15 (talk)

Comment Taken a look at the totality of the page creations from them (can be seen here), of the 96 articles they have made ~90 of them are related to battles, of which about half or two-thirds of these are between Muslim and Christian nations/peoples; notably, not a single time in his written articles do I see the Christians win one of these battles. Cannot speak to if this is a failing of the English Wikipedia that we ignored these battles before, or a sign of something else, necessarily. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source Comment: Yilmaz Oztuna, cited extensively by the user's articles and defended above, appears to have helped write a book (or at least a chapter thereof, here) in which the Armenian genocide is denied. Going to go out on a limb and assume they are probably biased on other matters involving Turkey and its Ottoman forefathers... -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To answer your question I am a user who is interested in Islamic military history and I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia by expanding this topic. I have created battles against Christian and Muslim nations, what I contribute to is what I am interested in and if I don’t create battles in which Christian nations have won then that means that it is not what I am interested in researching which is completely fine. I’d appreciate it if we stay on topic and address the verifiability of these articles. I’d like to say that I’ve already made a very reasonable explanation. The pages that cite Turkish historians are all supported by at least one English source that support the fact that these events took place. The Armenian genocide is a completely different topic to a battle that is supported by sources other than Yilmaz Oztuna, besides that he is a historian and as already mentioned Turkish historians are allowed to be cited on Wikipedia per WP:NOENG. I find it strange to question the usage of Turkish historians when the user who requested the deletion seems to think that Turkish historians should not be used while himself using Portuguese historians who lived in the 16th century, this seems to be very biased on his part. The user also created a similar page, the verifiability of which is highly questionable. Again I’d appreciate if we could stay on topic here and focus on the verifiability of these articles which is undisputedly supported by in page references, these articles are clearly not hoaxes as the user claims. I think we should also address the baseless arguments of the user who claims that these events are hoaxes despite the fact that every page is supported by at least more than one source. I have addressed his claims that no attack happened at Ash Shihr in 1531 or Jeddah at 1520 by providing an extremely relevant source which is solely focused on the failed Portuguese dominions in the Red Sea. Despite providing this proof the user just seems to ignore it and repeat the same argument that I’ve already addressed. Thanks Kabz15 (talk)
If theese are indeed based on a source that denies the Armenian genocide, then obviously Delete. Maybe get some admins to look at the involved users? Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello thanks for participating in this discussion. These pages are not based on a source that denies the Armenian genocide, the sources in question by Yilmaz Oztuna do not deny the Armenian genocide and there are other sources cited on these pages that are not published by him. Moreover a deletion discussion is about the article itself, we should address the articles and users’ arguments not the users themselves per WP:ATTP. Thanks Kabz15 (talk)
Delete per nominator and after a deep research on the author that Iazyges was suspected of being an Armenian genocide denier, I found out that Yılmaz Öztuna is definitly not reliable (I will open a request in WP:RSN to see if other editors are agreeing with me). The Turkish historian Dogan Gurpinar (an actual historian) said about Yılmaz in his paper Double Discourses and Romantic Nationalismp:59 that "..Yilmaz Öztuna, an amateur historian with nationalist and right/center-right dispositions." and in the notes he wrote that Öztuna was debunked by the historian Ali Birinci in his work Müverrih-i Mader-zadın Fülannamesi -Suratrat (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Suratrat, Yılmaz Öztuna’s work is not the only cited reference on these pages, if you’d like to discuss removing this historians work from these pages, well then that sounds reasonable, however deleting an entire page based on a single historian who is only one out of other cited sources on these pages does not sound like a good idea. There are still other reliable sources that support these events taking place even if Yılmaz Öztuna’s work is removed. Regards Kabz15 (talk)

Comment: Just to update, I’ve added fresh references to most pages in order to avoid the possible problem with Yılmaz Öztuna, there isn’t a single page out of these that rely solely on his work. Regards Kabz15 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above discussion and a likely WP:CIVILPOV violation. BrigadierG (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely back the above notion.Wareno (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment no opinion on the articles themselves, but a couple of delete arguments are invalid. If one source is wrong and biased in some subject it does not follow that citing them is a reason to delete an article on another subject. That most sources are Turkish and in Turkish language should not be detrimental, the subject is related to Turkish history, it is normal to have mostly Turkish sources. We're not deleting e.g. 2022 Los Angeles Chargers season just because all sources are from the USA, are we? - Nabla (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

to be clear my concern about all the sources I could find being Turkish is that these battles took place between the Ottomans and Portugal, so you would expect, at least, some Portuguese sources. However, as far as I can see, there aren’t any. Also the wars between the Ottomans and the Portuguese are very well documented indeed, and covered in many general histories of the period. That being the case, the battles ought to be mentioned in English, French and other sources, e.g the Cambridge History of Islam or any of these books, but they’re not. So my conclusion is either a. they happened but were so minor no serious History of the period mentions them, hence not notable, or b. They were invented or misdescribed by one Turkish author (Öztuna?) and then subsequent Turkish authors, relying on his account, reproduced his mistake in their own books. If literally no historians at all writing about this topic have covered these alleged events, except Öztuna and a couple of other Turkish writers, then I don’t think we have a solid enough basis for including them (i.e. a couple of weeks in from my earlier comments above I’m leaning more strongly towards deletion). Mccapra (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello Mccapra, just noting that Öztuna did not comment on the event and his work is not relied on by the cited historian on the Siege of Jeddah (1520) page. Moreover, regarding your comment on Portuguese historians, Casale who is cited on Battle of Kamaran and Battle of Bab al-Mandab relies on Portuguese works. Also I’ve checked the dates of the Turkish sources that support an Ottoman victory on the Battle of Ash-Shihr page and two of them predate Öztuna’s work. Regards Kabz15 (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that’s very helpful. I’m not !voting on this one a# I’m really unsure about it. Mccapra (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: OK. That is a valid argument, then. Nabla (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to update I’ve added three additional references on the Battle of Bab al-Mandab page and another three additional references on the Battle of Kamaran page. Kabz15 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist in light of additional sources found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while it's possible there may be an article here, I'm confident that the easiest way to find that article would be to blow these up and start again. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looking at all the articles, they containt good sources and do not seem to be hoaxes as is suggested by the person wanting to have the pages deleted. Their reason for deletion seems to be a discrimination because they say that "sources which are mostly in Turkish anyway". Also a closer look shows that this person has only nominated these articles on battles or wars where Portugal has been defeated, while they seem to be personally involved articles of battles/wars where Portugal was victorious.--Gazozlu (talk) 03:38, 28 September 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 One-room school. If you would like to argue for a different merge/redirect target, please take it up on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas one room school[edit]

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

This seems to just be a needless retelling of Kansas history with a focus on schoolhouses. There is no reason given why Kansas is more notable than any other location to justify an article, as the listed schoolhouses are largely non-notable by Wikipedia standards. The title of the article also implies that "Kansas one room school" is a specific type of school that Kansas pioneered, which it is not. InvisibleUp (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content into One-room school There are a lot of good sources that should definitely remain, but they'd be better within a broader article than one of smaller interest. Nate • (chatter) 17:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd for sure give this a new title, nothing wrong with "Early one-room schools in Kansas" having an article, so long as it has GNG sources. Not sure this has decent-enough sources. Oaktree b (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Kansas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also suggest Education in Kansas#History as a possible merge target, or maybe create an article on History of Education in Kansas.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is based solely on one-room schoolhouses in Kansas, and is only about the construction/architecture of said schoolhouses. Also lots of unverified info and fails the Manual of Style ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If merge, to where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Lorstaking (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One-room school would be right target for merge. Lorstaking (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redriect to One-room school. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 21:12, 25 September 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!} 23:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sociedad Latinoamericana de Biología Matemática[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable under WP:NORG. My WP:BEFORE search didn't find any significant coverage of the organization in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (NPP action) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Biology, Mathematics, and Latin America. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacing coverage. I found and added one ref, in a database. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 21:11, 25 September 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!} 23:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie bouquet[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG, all I could find were recipes, passing mentions, and info on one particular maker of these. I don't think a merge -- in this case to Cookies by Design, which supposedly came up with the concept -- is appropriate, since the idea of a bouquet of cookies is too general to be associated with one company. (Unrelatedly, that article itself needs work, but I'm doing that now.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, indeed does not appear to be notable. There are no specifics or minimal references to understand what exactly is meant --YouVeNeverSeenBetter (talk) 05:54, 26 September 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 Military patrol at the 1948 Winter Olympics. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikko Meriläinen[edit]

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

Non-notable skier with no medal record. Performed a before search, which didn't generate any third party sources to establish notability. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. I would also support a redirect to Military patrol at the 1948 Winter Olympics as an alternative to deletion. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 19:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Finland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Military patrol at the 1948 Winter Olympics as an alternative to deletion. A billion small hits in various newspaper sports sections around late 1940s and early 1950s (Unable to link; too recent to be publicly accessible), but these are largely passing mentions and run-of-the-mill sports event coverage. Think "Meriläinen came third" and maybe a short quote. The fi.wp article fi:Mikko Meriläinen has two book sources, of which I suspect Urheilumme Kasvot osa 1 (transl. Faces of our sport, part 1), where Meriläinen is supposedly discussed on page 827, to be a rather indiscriminate list of every Finnish sports person ever. I suspect the other (Urheilukunniamme puolustajat – Suomen olympiaedustajat 1906–2000) is the same but for Olympians. I have access to neither, so I'd be happy to change my !vote if someone has access to those sources and can vouch for their depth of coverage. But as it is now, I'm not seeing the coverage required by our policies and guidelines. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above to Military patrol at the 1948 Winter Olympics in the absence of further sources. Ingratis (talk) 09:36, 22 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Genserowski[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGYMNAST. BangJan1999 19:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Germany. BangJan1999 19:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers.com brings up some results. See for example [13] [14] [15] and [16]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like there's a number of sources available to meet the GNG and his notability is not for his Olympic involvement, but for his involvement in running the Turnverein, which received coverage spanning years. I'll format the above from BeanieFan11 as well.

"Name Confused And Prof. Close To Losing Roll". The Oregon Daily Journal. September 11, 1915. Retrieved September 21, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

Cronin, R.A. (February 18, 1917). "Gens Was Taking No Chances With Redcoats". The Oregon Daily Journal. Retrieved September 21, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

"Dem Osten ein Vorbild". Washington Staatszeitung. April 29, 1926. Retrieved September 21, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

"Turn Verein Will Have Fine Show". The Oregon Daily Journal. January 21, 1912. Retrieved September 21, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

"Prof. Gens Ready For Opening". The Oregon Daily Journal. August 31, 1919. Retrieved September 21, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

There appears to be a number of various sources in German publications as well from the turn of the century. But, alas, I do not speak the language. Silver seren^C 23:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on additional sources above, which I agree show notability for his Turnverein career rather than for the Olympics. Silverseren also mentions German-language sources: these include an edition of the Jüdische Turnzeitung (1904-07), which comments that for a Jewish gymnast to perform in front of Genserowski was like a soldier drilling in front of the Kaiser, and if he were that highly regarded then there will be more on him if the whole run of the paper and other contemporary press could be accessed. Also this on Jewish gymnastics in Berlin, to the effect that he was a member not only of the Berliner Turnerschaft but also of the Berlin Bar Kochba, which was clearly regarded as noteworthy. Ingratis (talk) 02:33, 28 September 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. Not helpful to using this as precedent, but I don't see a 3rd relist helping after two generated only one additional comment. Star Mississippi 01:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Le Vingtième de cavalerie[edit]

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

I am afraid most of Category:Lucky Luke albums don't meet WP:NBOOK/WP:GNG and should be redirected to a list or such. I am listing this one here, as a test case, and also, b/c I think this one SHOULD be notable (it's, errr, politically incorrect, just read the plot...). Unfortunately, my BEFORE for English and French names does not suggest anyone has discussed this album in reliable sources. There's a chance I missed something from French-language websites, my French is poor. Fr wiki article is of little help. In either case, let's discuss. Please note that if this ends up with 'redirect' or such I intend to be bold and redirect many of Lucky Luke albums to the same location (probably Lucky_Luke#Collected_editions, which I suggest as a redirect target, in spirit of WP:PRESERVE). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and France. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or some merge (not just a redirect), and please don't use the result of this one as a blanket precedent as they have varying degrees of notability. this one, together with anumber of others, gets a short paragraph here, and a mention here (in an article which establishes notability for another Lucky Luke album, Chasseur de primes). This is behind a paywall, so I can't see what is said in it (passing mention or more?). This book references the comic album, and here it's used for the motto of another book. This 2020 book references an anti-tabac dialogue in the comic. And then there are the cases where I can't access the source to judge ho long or short the mention is, like here or here (In English, by a Dutch-language author). It was also turned into an episode of the animated series[17], translated in many languages, and has been constantly reprinted since its original appearance in 1965. Fram (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram Could you add this to the article, either as a reception or just as further reading section's list of sources to consult? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I can't say I am impressed by the sources found. The first one, the only one you say has a confirmed paragraph-lenght content, is a plot summary of various albums, and the paragraph in question is 2-3 sentences per book. Oh, and per GNG, we need multiple examples of SIGCOV-meeting coverage, so no, Le Figaro's article does not estabilish a notability for the other album (although it's halfway here - one more source like that and that album will be borderline notable, as two sources would meet the GNG requirement for "multiple" sources). Anyway, the other sources cited seem to fail WP:SIGCOV (or are paywalled and we haven't confirmed whehter they do or don't). Unless we can find lenghtier coverage, a redirect (preserving history so that this can be easily restored if one day someone does find 2+ sources meeting SIGCOV) is the best solution here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "political correctness" of the comic, it is not only rather irrelevant for this discussion, but the comic is a parody of a John Ford western and is a lot more PC and open-minded (and anti-militaristic) than most US western movies.

Redirect per nom, as the article makes no claim to notability. Nothing to merge, as the content is barely more than plot summary. No prejudice against recreation if/when sources are found, but I would prefer to see Lucky Luke improved before splits for individual volumes are made. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was classed as a stub, but it's not a stub; it should have been re-classed as Start (which I have updated). Looking at the sources from @Fram above, I'm inclined to keep rather than redirect (although the article does need some work). ButlerBlog (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the basis of the sources identified above, I think it is quite clear that it meets the (admittedly low) standards of WP:NBOOK. Or is a challenge being mounted to this guidance? —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources did not convince me that this particular volume of the series was notable independent of the series as a whole. NBOOK doesn't differentiate between a novel and a serialized work collected in multiple volumes, so I'm not sure it's a valid measuring stick for this particular article. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even in French sources, I don't find much. [18] mentions it in passing, so does this [19]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 21 September 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 see a rough consensus among participants to Keep this article. I think this is partially due to article improvement (through removing promotional content) by BriefEdits so thank you for that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Lindsay (musician)[edit]

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

so this article is suffering from a lot of things, the obvious extreme promotion, "fan cruft" (if you can call paid editors fans) and more importantly a lack of reliable sourcing.

I did some digging yesterday and found that a lot of the content is greatly exaggerated - particularly his involvement, or the significance of his involvement with other notable acts and the fact that the majority of the sources are either unreliable, PR or just simply not coverage. (As an example of the exaggerations, the "praise by vice" is greatly misrepresented - Noisey by Vice, in this case is a column written by a contributor. And I can provide several more examples like this.

If we remove the poorly/unsourced claims, we're not left with much - he's made a lot of music, but very little of it has received any significant in depth coverage to merit a standalone article.

This article is part of a very large WP:WALLEDGARDEN both with respect to the articles themselves and the circular sourcing. PICKLEDICAE🥒 12:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, and Oregon. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting the user Praxidicae be blocked from any further action against the Jon Lindsay page. This person has vandalized the pages of Benji Hughes and American Aquarium, in addition to Jon Lindsay. Jon Lindsay was a member of Benji Hughes for years, and has significant collaborations with American Aquarium across both the Jon Lindsay and NC Music Love Army catalogs.

Look at the Benji Hughes page. After deleting sourced material on Jon Lindsay’s page demonstrating his documented involvement in Benji Hughes, Praxidicae says that Lindsay is not mentioned in the few sources on this page. However, none of the backing band members are, and only Lindsay was deleted, as this user Praxidicae is clearly intentionally seeking to erase all instances of Lindsay from the wiki platform as a personal attack. Lindsay’s involvement in Benji Hughes is notable and well documented.

Here are sources:

[20]
Lindsay clearly visible in performance (many videos), named as band member
[21]
It is clearly an attack to deny Lindsay’s valid coverage by significant publications There are many standalone 3rd party features on Lindsay such as this in Pop Matters: [22]
Jon Lindsay has been featured on the cover of magazines, and cover sections/sunday arts sections of daily papers like the Charlotte Observer [23]
[24]

He has music in film and television shows. This is preposterous.

Lindsay has made multiple recordings involving American Aquarium and appeared with them on stage and in the studio countless times. There were sources to support this on the AA page, that were called “nonsense” and an attempt at a walled garden. How is it “nonsense” to cite discography contributions that are significant, that followers of both pages would want to know about? “Dear Mr. McCrory” and the “Love Army” album were covered internationally and that is easily discoverable. Lindsay was the co-founder of the entire project, which had 14 releases that absolutely were covered a lot. Again, this is a personal attack and should be stopped immediately.

It is clear that this user is seeking to harm Lindsay’s public page for personal reasons that violate the wikipedia community guidelines and this should be reversed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:194:827F:85F0:89AD:E42E:E6D9:927C (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is extremely serious. I have first-hand intimate knowledge that the contributor Praxidicae is on a personal vindictive mission to defame and slander Lindsay in this as well as other forums. This deletion discussion should be ended immediately and the article to be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:194:827F:85F0:78B9:1F25:E7FA:30A (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note I removed this as a pointless PA against the nominator, but she asked me to restore. Primefac (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comment or we can't treat it as valid. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae is at it again, Praxidicae is on a personal vindictive mission to defame and slander as many people as possible NataliaSweeney (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like Lindsay meets the nobility guidelines for this standalone article. The suggestion that this page be deleted seems extreme and unwarranted. I did some digging and agree with the judgement that Praxidicae is engaging in vandalism on this and other pages. I find this page informative and do not with to see it deleted. 207.144.210.21 (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, few if any major sources found. He exists, but hasn't garnered much coverage. Please refrain from personal attacks in AfD, there are other forums for discussing issues/harassment. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The promotional haze here is thick, but sufficient sources exist to cut through it. Allmusic bio, PopMatters, Seattle PI, IndyWeek, Spill, Charlotte Observer (paywalled). That's enough to hurdle bullet 1 of WP:MUSIC and therefore also the GNG. Chubbles (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from talk page per edit request) I am currently writing a book that involves both Jon Lindsay and Benji Hughes. Suggesting deletion of this article is really nuts, I use it as a resource. If you don't like the tone, ok fine I guess- but, while Lindsay is not Taylor Swift, he has a very well-covered career and an engaged audience in the music media as well as mainstream (for his political work that's not even being discussed by this person that started all of this deletion suggestion nonsense), and your current discussion is overlooking that there are more than 30 sourced feature articles (not just mentions) and reviews about his solo work that are anything but "PR" or whatever has been said.
Click on the links, this is significant 3rd party objective coverage, period. Directly about what this artist has made. This is real coverage. Point blank, there are articles here from Vice, Consequence of Sound, Paste Magazine, Magnet Magazine, AOL Spinner, SXSW Official, Time Out NY, The Charlotte Observer, Raleigh News and Observer, Indy Weekly, Pop Matters; he's been on tv personally, his songs are IN tv and film; there are cover stories in magazines, exclusively about Lindsay, yet the person that started this says "can't find major coverage." If the articles already cited at the bottom of this page that directly review and speak to Lindsay's records and tours and projects and production work don't meet guidelines, then deleted 80% of this entire platform. Lindsay has far more legit press than most articles I see on here.
I'd like to flag and re-share for open discussion review the top 10 feature articles, exclusively about Jon Lindsay and his work, and that already appear on the main Jon Lindsay article, but are just being completely overlooked in this really crazy discussion about deletion. You all are also not discussing any of his press from the NC Music Love Army, which has political and historical significance involving major figures like William Barber, and none of that is even surfacing here. I need to be included on this discussion and I can't believe that the facts are being skirted over so far. Please allow the voices in here of the experts on this subject.
Also, there's something going on with the person that started all of this in terms of a weird direction to take. This article could easily be edited if needed. Scrapping a quality reference that I use (right now daily) would exactly the opposite of what this platform is supposed to be.
Thanks,
YF Terry Ukenation (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC) My request is simply: please include my vote for "keep" this reference article on the deletion discussion page. For the many reaseons I explained. But if nothing else, "Keep". Thank you. Ukenation (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article can be cleaned up. There is enough coverage of the artist and his work to satisfy WP:SINGER. While most is local, there is sufficient non-local coverage too. (e.g. Consequence, PopMatters, Vice) -- BriefEdits (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: As somebody who's edited the article heavily these last few days, the quality of the sources is really not there. While the subject's debut album is well covered, none of his other works remotely come close to notability, which fails WP:SINGER. While there are a lot of sources for other aspects of his career, they are almost always passing mentions or underdeveloped sources. Seeing past breadth of sources with shallow coverage or good coverage but either restricted to the debut album or local profiles of the subject, I find it difficult to confidently endorse this article for keep. Changing to weak keep for now awaiting original nominator's source analysis. -- BriefEdits (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'll be posting a source analysis later this evening to refute the claims here that this meets GNG based on the sources which are all dubious, passing mentions, blackhat SEO and outright unreliable. PICKLEDICAE🥒 12:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is straight copy and paste as I’ve seen PICKLEDICAE use this exact same statement on countless pages NataliaSweeney (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment interested in seeing the source analysis, willing to reconsider, depending on analysis of course. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I concur. I will attempt to clean up the article in the meantime. -- BriefEdits (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have contributed to the article substantially and added a strong amount of quality, standalone, dedicated Lindsay coverage. And I appreciate the other recent inclusions and edits that show the clear and obvious merit of this artist article, and that easily demonstrate that GNG are met. There was already a boatload of great references on here; but it is now 100% completely without question that there are over 50 pieces of direct Lindsay press here that are direct reviews or direct coverage of his records and tours from high quality sources. The fact that the wiki community is standing by letting a wild comment from one person such as "the sources ALL of which are dubious" go unchecked should bother every single person here that cares about the integrity of this platform, like myself, who uses this page as a reference to the very clearly documented coverage on this artist's career and work. Will somebody here that cares about the integrity of this site and not the obvious attack attempt by one person please directly comment on how these direct features and reviews are in any way "dubious, passing mentions, blackhat SEO and outright unreliable" when I sat here this morning and read every single link and can verify--as can anyone with eyes--that these are quality music reviews and news articles? Some real additional oversight is clearly needed in this discussion to curb this insanity. Lastly, let us not forget that this argument against the page was initially begun as "the page is too promotional" saying it shows so much favorable press for Lindsay put up by a "paid PR person." When that argument was not supported by the wiki community, the argument shifted to GNG. The point is, it is super clear to anyone paying attention to this at this point that there's something untoward afoot with the intentions of the original deletion discussion, as it has always been meritless, yet keeps being pushed by this one person- for any reason at this point. The point is to get the article down for Lindsay, guidelines to the wind, therefore I am in support of the comments that something is deeply unsettling and wrong here. Who will address all of this? KEEP THIS PAGE and address the attack. Ukenation (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the sources given don't support keeping it. I'm of mixed opinion otherwise, but have voted !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it is now a re-written article. And a very good one. Regarding GNG, please refer to the below 18 feature articles about Lindsay that are sourced on the article page. Regardless of any supposed forthcoming source analysis from anyone else, GNG can be settled once and for all right now by reviewing what's already here:

Consequence, Daytrotter, Paste Magazine, Vice/Noisey, Charlotte Observer, Performer Magazine, Pop Matters, Big Takeover, Indy Weekly, Encore (magazine cover and feature), Shuffle Magazine, Creative Loafing, Blurt, Charleston City Paper, WUNC (NPR), Star News, Charlotte Magazine, Spill Magazine. Since it has been falsely alleged that "all" the articles on the entire page are are "dubious" and "suspect", let's just keep it to this list for easy resolution. I find all of the sourced material (60 links) on the article helpful, but I'm asking others to quickly review JUST the above listed outlets and coverage, as the GNG argument is instantly put to bed once and for all here. Thank you. Ukenation (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please go through the sources I just highlighted and explain how these don't meet GNG. That will be impossible for you to do. Deletion discussion guidelines specifically state that articles can and should be improved if there is a perceived issue. That has been done. This article has been greatly improved, and what's here now must be addressed. According to the guidelines, you *must* say how and why these top examples of specific coverage that I highlighted are somehow not satisfactory. Come on people, if you can't do that specifically, you aren't discussing the facts and you're just "voting" with another agenda. KEEP THIS ARTICLE and DISCUSS THE CONTENT SPECIFICALLY Ukenation (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ukenation: Please have some sense of decorum and wait for the discussion to develop rather than screaming through the internet to get people to change their minds. Let your arguments stand for themselves. You don't need to rehash the same points ad nauseum and rush other editors. And baselessly accusing other editors of having some sort of nefarious agenda is both reductive and frankly immature. -- BriefEdits (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
noted. I'm not trying to yell. It's just been bothersome to me that this article was suggested for deletion without the easy edits that could have been made if needed. I will stand down and trust the process. Thank you. Ukenation (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see reasonable articles in the Charlotte Observer and Herald Sun. Other sources appear to be either very local or specialized, but they do support the basic notability. It would be ideal to find a source that is 1) substantial and 2) biographical, but I think he squeaks by Notability. Is this guy Elvis? No. Few are. Lamona (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lindsay easily meets GNG based on the articles highlighted by Ukenation. On top of his solo and production/collaborator coverage, the NC Love Army work is covered extensively in papers of record cited here. Every sentence in this article has a quality source to go with it. This one is clear cut. There are thousands of wiki article pages out here that actually need this discussion, and this is not one of them. -Haley Stimpson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.112.180 (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am concerned that this discussion is being swamped by socks, but it nevertheless remains the case that, if an artist meets WP:MUSIC, the page should remain, even if that artist or the artist's fans or promotional team really, really want there to be an article, and even if the artist shamelessly promotes himself by courting the press. Chubbles (talk) 18:10, 9 September 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) 16:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sending an email requesting additional oversight on this discussion at this time. The relisting of the article for deletion here is not only highly unusual, it's also 100% against WP:GD.

This discussion has gone through 2 full rounds/weeks and has reached, at minimum, a "rough consensus" for "keep". Either we have a clear case of a rough consensus for "keep" or you could incorrectly say the debate is still an uncertain tie- but according to WP:GD, even IF it were an uncertain tie at this point after 2 rounds, the article is to be taken out of debate. These are the guidelines. Again, a rough consensus is the desired outcome, and that's exactly what we have here for keep. Ukenation (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:GD "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice."

But there HAS been plenty of participation AND rough consensus for "Keep" during two debates. Enough of this. Ukenation (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Praxidicae, you mentioned a source analysis, which would be useful to have; I encourage you to ping current non-SPA participants after having done so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The article needs extensive surgery to remove the deluge of cruft and reference spam, and the novella's worth of text and claims above is dubious, but Lindsay does pass, fairly clearly, WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. The Charlotte Observer and Indy Week features are significant coverage in major North Carolina publications, the Popmatters and Consequence of Sound reviews probably count as well since both are fairly major music publications. There is probably more in the gargantuan wall of refs that counts toward WP:SIGCOV but I think these are significant on their own. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheshire FM[edit]

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

Article about a defunct local radio station with no citations. Attempts to find independent media coverage of the subject reveals a couple of passing mentions on Radio Today including the station's closure but nothing else. It's unlikely that there is enough meaningful coverage out there to produce a reliable article on this subject. Flip Format (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. Flip Format (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet NME. Haueirlan (talk) 06:19, 26 September 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 Madeley, Staffordshire#Railways. Information can be merged from history if desired Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madeley Junction, Staffordshire[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG, only relies on two sources both of which are maps. Rly junctions generally do not merit their own articles. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite clearly non-notable. Only the most extensive and complex rail junctions are generally notable (e.x. Sawtooth Bridges). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Not notable person. Agree with nom. --不和の林檎 (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madeley Junction is a place, not a person. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I split this out from the Madeley Junction article some years ago, which was about two otherwise unrelated railway junctions that happened to share a name. No opinion either way on the notability. Pinging Alnitak3 (talk · contribs) as the user who added the Staffordshire content. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking coverage. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted above there does not seem to be the sort of coverage that would suggest notability and in most cases railway junctions are not in themselves notable enough to have an article. Dunarc (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or Redirect) to Madeley,_Staffordshire#Railways, where there is already information about the railway. Black Kite (talk) 10:09, 28 September 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 Southall rail crash. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Southall East Junction[edit]

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

No sources, clearly fails WP:GNG. Rly junctions do not generally merit their own articles. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect All I can find are mentions of a 1997 collision between a HST service and a freight train at the junction. But notability is not inherited, so that leave us with a delete, or a redirect to the crash article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:43, 23 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Woodburn Junction[edit]

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

Page cites no sources, clearly fails WP:GNG. Rly junctions generally do not merit their own articles. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear notable. I get a few hits for collisions which occurred at or near the junction, but nothing else. Not opposed to a redirect if a valid target is identified. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator about WP:GNG. The joy of all things (talk) 06:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Seems to be not notable and without any reliable sources. --不和の林檎 (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although there are some notable railway junctions in existence, I could not find any sources to support this particular junction's notability. In fact, I could only find mentions of collisions, as well as unrelated search results for somewhere in Iowa. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fawkham Junction[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG, relies entirely on one source from 5 years ago. Suggest sourced content be merged into a nearby station article (presumably Ebbsfleet International railway station. Rly junctions generally do not merit their own articles. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I get lots of hits for the name, but nothing more than brief mentions. What's in the article currently is almost entirely about the lines at and near the junction, not the junction itself. No prejudice against redirection to a suitable target. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marshal (2002 film)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTDATABASE. Also, move Marshal (2019 film) to Marshal (film) (currently redirecting to this) once this is deleted. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be not notable and without any reliable sources or reviews. --Dark Juliorik (talk) 07:44, 23 September 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 Aynho. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aynho Junction[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG - one source basically says where it is, two others are irrelevant to the junction and are almost exclusively about 2 old stations, the other talks about a signalling centre in the West Mids. Railway junctions generally do not merit their own articles. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aynho, where it is already discussed. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 28 September 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 Droitwich Spa railway station. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Droitwich Spa Junction[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG and has no sources to support it. Railway junctions generally do not merit their own articles. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Droitwich Spa railway station. Black Kite (talk) 10:31, 28 September 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 West of England line. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worting Junction[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG and relies entirely on one source, published in 1945. Railway junctions generally do not merit their own articles, and some content here could be reproduced into the article of a local rail station (probably Basingstoke). Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to West of England line as this junction is effectively the terminus of that line. Waggers TALK 10:38, 27 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will Cook (writer)[edit]

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

Biography of a writer, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. The only notability claim on the table here is that he and his work existed, which is not automatically enough in and of itself, and the article is referenced entirely to directory entries with absolutely no evidence of any WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him and his work shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Creamjuice (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's best to use his full name when searching: William Everett Cook. My only success was in finding that his archives are held by the Orbis Cascade Alliance, which has a short bio, and he is listed as an Indiana author by the Indiana University. I'm leaning "delete" but waiting to see if anyone is more successful in finding sources. Lamona (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was initially a tough one because the name Will Cook is so common that searches bring up a ton of extraneous information. Another difficulty is that he died in 1964, which means media coverage and reviews of his works mostly pre-date the internet era. However, after doing a good bit of research I discovered this author was actually a big deal in the Western fiction genre during his lifetime and for decades after. There are detailed entries about him in the Encyclopedia of Frontier and Western Fiction and Twentieth-Century Western Writers, encyclopedias released in 1983 and 1992 that cover the Western genre. In addition, his books and stories were turned into a major John Ford film, a couple of other films, and episodes of TV westerns such as Cheyenne, Bronco, and Dick Powell's Zane Grey Theatre (his IMDb entry is here). And while most media coverage pre-dates the internet, Cook does have reviews in Publisher's Weekly and Booklist. I have added all of these and additional citations to the article, along with adding info from these citations. In light of all this, I believe this subject meets Wikipedia's notability standards.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SouthernNights, especially inclusion in two specialist encyclopedias and work made into multiple films, which seems to meet WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two encyclopedias found by SouthernNights (and added to the article - thanks!) provide sufficient information for notability. Note that both can be borrowed from the Open Library/Internet Archive as part of their controlled digital lending. Lamona (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Narroways Hill Junction[edit]

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

Railway junctions generally do not warrant their own articles. Ref's are generally from rail-related sources, suggesting it fails WP:GNG. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The best I can find is [25], which has some brief mentions, but not enough to demonstrate significant coverage. It's just a couple of switches - nothing notable about it. I would not oppose a redirect to a suitable target, but I didn't find any obvious ones. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:17, 24 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M.S.P.T High School[edit]

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

Not notable at all. Google search only returns results that would only be helpful for someone looking to attend the school. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see listings but nothing in-depth. Strange enough, there is no school website and their Facebook page is empty. The Banner talk 17:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tang-gam[edit]

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

Bunch of meanings of a word. Fails WP:NOTDICT. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Religion, Christianity, Asia, China, and Korea. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Manannan67 (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. desmay (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Park Systems[edit]

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

Nothing substantial to satisfy WP:NCORP. Article has been edited primarily by COI/UPE editors since its creation, little more than a company brochure. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly promotional. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete written in a promotional manner, only has 1 citation that appears to be broken, and per Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1165#Park Systems Wikipedia Page Modification it seems that it has been mostly edited by a user in violation of WP:CONFLICT. UpdateWindows (talk) 18:33, 23 September 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. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomical locations in fiction[edit]

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

What's the point of this article? It's unreferenced and has an unclear scope. It's too broad to ever become an article (like Venus in fiction and like). It doesn't list works (like most 'in fiction' articles, like Venus), just other Wikipedia articles. On talk, it was suggested it's a list of lists, but most of the entries on it are NOT lists. There are zillion of astronomical locations mentioned in fiction. This is just as pointless as an attempt to create locations in fiction would be. Template:Astronomical locations in fiction and Category:Fiction about astronomical locations are sufficient for navigational purposes.

Pinging two editors who discussed this, briefly, on talk. User:DanielRigal and User:LaundryPizza03. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reviewed the discussion on the talk page and agree with the editors. Does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of sources, and that includes even some of the articles it's linking to. This is simply too broad to be an article, and even most of the linked articles on this page are in questionable shape for inclusion on Wikipedia. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think such a page might be useful as a list of lists... but it seems we've been progressively getting rid of the lists it would reference. Jclemens (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'd completely forgotten that this exists so I was a little confused when I got pinged about it. The current state of the article is not as sprawling as when I questioned it in 2016 but I'm still not sure that it is very useful. I don't think it adds much over Template:Astronomical locations in fiction, which renders it fairly redundant. What would save it would be to make into more of an actual article. Are there any sources discussing why certain locations are favoured in sci-fi which might make that possible? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DanielRigal, templates are not seen on 50% or more of Wikipedia searches (mobile does not show templates) so this is never a reason for deleting information. Please look at it without that reasoning, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's still a fine list and navigates readers well, even though it used to be much longer before its entries being chopped down during the last couple of years. The nominator seems unaware that existing templates can not be used as a reason to delete anything (they are not seen on mobile). Remove that and there is actually little reason to delete, the page does no harm to the project and is overall beneficial. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Even assuming this is a navigational list of lists and not a standalone topic, there are two options for it, neither great. Either this encompasses every astronomical location in fiction, which is obviously absurd, or its scope is massively curtailed, at which point it is misnamed and not useful for navigation. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The articles in this index have been deleted or are no longer lists, making this redundant to Category:Fiction about astronomical locations and Template:Astronomical locations in fiction. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a 'delete' citing an existing template as a reason. I guess this can't be emphasized enough here in AfDland - templates are not seen on mobile. Thus over 50% of Wikipedia's readers are offered no "redundant" template to look at (are categories still not on mobile? I'm not sure). Since the existence of the template is still present in the nomination, and people are using it as a reason to delete, this AfD request is malformed and should be withdrawn. At the very least, if the language and votes still exist when the closer comes calling, the article should be kept on procedural reasons alone. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying this should be deleted b/c the template exists, it's existence is just a side note to this failing WP:GNG/WP:NLIST. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gnomingstuff. This is not separately notable without WP:SIGCOV. Someone could try to change the scope, but it seems equally impossible to write an overall "space in fiction" article. I might suggest a redirect to stars and planetary systems in fiction, but that article is in terrible shape. Jontesta (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see if it is possible to turn this into an article. Mukt (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLT, and probably rename to reflect that this isn't an article, it's a list (a list of lists, to be exact). ansh.666 23:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ansh.666 Can you point out which lists are actually listed from that article? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of these pages used to be lists of works of fiction which contained the titular astronomical body, though it seems like they've been gutted and converted to prose by User:TompaDompa in the past year. This page still has the "list of lists" template at the bottom though. ansh.666 03:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gutted is a rather unfair way to describe rewriting unencyclopedic trivia into encyclopedic prose content. And since no lists are linked, we cannot call it a list of lists, methinks. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't get me wrong, I think it was the right thing to do, but there was a lot of information removed. Either way, the list of lists thing doesn't matter as far as CLT goes, it's still a valid duplicate of the template. ansh.666 07:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy allows for a duplication of templates in the form of articles, presumably for navigationa purposes? I don't think it's a valid WP:DISAMBIG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already cited it in my original comment, it's the guideline WP:CLT. ansh.666 19:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but such lists still need to meet GNG policy per WP:LISTN, don't they? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, per WP:LISTN: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. ansh.666 19:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, I don't see how this list fullfils such purposes, at it doesn't seem like a searchable term. Astronomical location or Astronomical locations are not even redirects to anywhere, this is a technical list that's has zero visiblity outside Wikipedia and the few editors writing such topics. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Lists of astronomical locations in fiction; this AfD seems to have been prompted by an ill advised move that should have been subject to discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware this was moved (was it?), but rename won't change the fact that it fails our criteria. If it is a list, how does it meet WP:NLIST? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:IINFO and not a helpful navigational list; people looking for "[planet] in fiction" will just search for that instead. Sandstein 09:15, 29 September 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. Largely procedural keep as nomination has been withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old Burnside Yard[edit]

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

The article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. A search does not reveal anything about this subject at all, other than Wikipedia mirrors. The sources only support the yard's existence and nothing more. Two of the three sentences in this article are not even about the yard itself. Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, search returns nothing indicating notability, even for a redirect. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my vote as I only did a search under 'Old Burnside Yard', did not look for 'burnside shops. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to Burnside Shops. I am not sure where the "old" came from, but Burnside was the location of both a yard and significant shops for the Illinois Central Railroad. Easy GNG pass, as seen with [26] [27] [28] [29]. The last source states that the Burnside Shops were the most important shop facilities on the Illinois Central. I found so much coverage I could write a GA on these shops (and I might do so). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the above, I'd like to withdraw this nomination. I somehow thought this was a yard called "Old Burnside". Burnside Shops, on the other hand, is clearly a notable topic around the same location; the article is just very poorly named. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:52, 22 September 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, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amira Sajwani[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. This article looks nothing but an advert piece. Subject fails GNG. No significant coverage in multiple, reliable and independent sources. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and United Arab Emirates. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, I find no sources. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases and "Trump brothers attended a wedding" are all useless as sources. Oaktree b (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is the article advertising? I made sure that it states plain facts without any praising or advertising. I also disagree about the lack of significant coverage in sources as the sources include Bloomberg, Construction Business News and Arabian Business which are all independent and unrelated to one another! --Abdullah Arfa (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are all trivial mentions of her. We need stories about her, not simply having her mentioned in relation to another subject. Oaktree b (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Non notable person. The article is a resume. The citation to Arabian Businesss has no byline, essentially a puff piece. Reference to https://www.amirasajwani.ae/ is to the subject's website. The Bllomberg citation is to a short listing. The remaining articles are from industry trade mags. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. The nominator expressed concerns about paid editing involvement with the article, which can be further discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ravivaar With Star Parivaar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG ( This page was placed in draft; the user moved it. Tv Show Is Notable But All Source PR And doubt paid editing. ) PravinGanechari (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PravinGanechari (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article was moved to draftspace due to lack of references, we added the references and then another user Jha09 moved the page to mainspace. The articles are all from reliable sources as per WP:ICTFSOURCES and what you are saying is pr articles they are actually behind the scenes or articles on excepts of the episodes. Imsaneikigai (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has proper reference. All the other inputs are mentioned clearly. Does not find any need to delete it. And is not a pr based show neither the ref. are pr. Jha09 (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- seems to be notable, but the page should be rewritten. --不和の林檎 (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - nominator themselves states that show is notable and this is an article content issue. Content issues shouldn't be litigated at AfD. matt91486 (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have tried to make the content better, moreover as it is a notable show, everyone should contribute in making the content rich. Sources are reliable too..Jha09
Keep: Seems notable. DoraShin15, 13:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments to keep are quite weak, as there need to be sources discussing the topic of the list, not just each item in it. No apparent consensus on the proposed rename with what appears to be a substantively different scope. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of primates of autocephalous and autonomous apostolic churches[edit]

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

Article has been PROD'd and draftified twice and it still has no sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Religion, and Christianity. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even with sources, the list itself is somewhat arbitrary, with a confusing title for the average user. We already have pages for lists of popes and the like. TNstingray (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unsourced material shouldn't be allowed to stay on Wikipedia indefinitely. It looks like with a more understandable title there could be a valuable article in the vicinity of this topic, but it would be better to start from the ground up with sources. Gazelle55 (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Each entry points to a WP page with references. If it is just a matter of copying a reference or two from each of those pages then ... ok. But while the article is without references, there is ample proof that references exist. Lamona (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the matter of WP:NOTDIRECTORY to consider. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as blue linked lists can easily be referenced if necessary (for BLP reasons) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If the article isn't deleted, perhaps we should rename it to "List of Eastern Orthodox primates" given no other churches are represented? Gazelle55 (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Gazelle55 to "List of current Eastern Orthodox primates" (hopefully we don't need a note that clarifies we aren't talking about chimpanzees embracing theosis). The scope of this list under the current name is incredibly vague and susceptible to too much subjectivity. As a list of Eastern Orthodox primates, it would serve a valid and useful purpose. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it will be incredibly difficult to draft a NPOV inclusion criteria for this article. 01:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahaza (talk • contribs)

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 13:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Wallace[edit]

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

Doesn't yet meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Impressive list of achievements, but can't find significant coverage from independent sources about Wallace himself in a WP:BEFORE search, only passing mentions in articles about biotech business and about the cycling league he started. The Harvard Business School coverage is significant, but not independent. The 2017 Boston Business Journal "40 under 40" listing is neither notable nor secondary, and is mostly an interview with Wallace.

The article was created by an editor with a new account but apparent expertise in article creation, who has helpfully declared paid editing at their user page, but then gone ahead and created the article in main space rather than submit it as a draft for review. Storchy (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Massachusetts. Storchy (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A heap of interviews, primary sources, press releases and casual mentions. Lacking are qualifying citations that meet the GNG. Ravenswing 01:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree, many interviews, not much else we can use. Lots of hits on some sort of treasure hunt using this name. Don't think it's the same person. Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 21 September 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 11:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Shaindlin[edit]

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

Contested PROD. My rationale after conducting WP:BEFORE was " Nothing to suggest WP:BIO is met" and nothing seems to have changed since then. SmartSE (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources are all LOCALCOVERAGE that do not suggest notability. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I did some work in July to try to clean up this article. At the time, I spent some time looking for sources – except for this interview, I could not find anything significant that demonstrated Shaindlin's notability (most coverage was limited to passing mentions about him in articles about the hotel he runs). Accordingly, it didn't seem like the subject met WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. I did a quick search just now and it doesn't seem like anything has changed since July. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ro Charlz[edit]

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

Unsourced biography, Notability MSportWiki (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be not notable and without any reliable sources --Dark Juliorik (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not a single reliable source found. Atighot (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was also unable to find any sources and judging by his racing record it seems unlikely any would exist. A7V2 (talk) 01:33, 26 September 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tracey (journalist)[edit]

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

Of the twenty-six sources cited in the article (as of 05:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)), only ten are secondary. Those are, in chronological order:

"Amateur video shows TCNJ arrest at Coulter event" (26 February 2009) and "TCNJ student pleads guilty to disrupting Ann Coulter event" (14 April 2009) – two articles in a local newspaper about his arrest at an Ann Coulter event.
"West Caldwell man wins journalism award" (9 July 2010) – a two-sentence article in a local newspaper about him winning "the award for CampusProgress.org Breakthrough Story or Series".
"Did Rep. Maxine Waters 'shove' a reporter? You decide" (4 June 2017) and "'Young Turks' Correspondent Says Rep. Maxine Waters 'Shoved' Him" (5 June 2017) – two articles about a politician "walk[ing] away from an interview with Tracey and push[ing] aside his hand and microphone" (quoting the Wikipedia article).
"The Paranoid Center" (26 March 2019) – only a trivial mention: "... the strongest skeptics of the Russiagate narrative have been left-wing journalists – Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Michael Tracey and others."
"Should The Daily Beast have exposed the man behind 'drunk Pelosi' video?" (3 June 2019) – only a trivial mention: "Others who jumped on board to criticize The Daily Beast included ... freelance journalist Michael Tracey, formerly of The Young Turks."
"Leftists Shouldn't Go on Tucker Carlson" (12 July 2019) – only mentions Michael Tracey in context of his appearances on Tucker Carlson Tonight and the two times he criticized the show and Carlson.
"The Trailer: What we've learned from the great mask war" (28 May 2020) – only trivial mentions.
"Left Heretics and the New Media Collective" (15 September 2020) – one paragraph about some Twitter slapfight in which he participated, one sentence about his coverage of the "looting and riots", and several trivial mentions.

All in all, the coverage is rather sparse and trivial, and Michael Tracey does not seem to be sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article. Kleinpecan (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Politics. Kleinpecan (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep looking beyond what is in the article at the moment, I found this piece which exclusively focuses on Tracey. Altogether, the article passes WP:BASIC.--User:Namiba 12:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bunch of secondary sources and one ok good source, not really there yet. A few more god sources like the Daily Dot, we should be ok though. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep theres a lot of unnecessary references but between the ones which actually talk about the subject and the daily dot article Kleinpecan found I do think that WP:GNG is satisfied. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking through the article, he doesn't seem notable enough. There are a thousand internet personalities just like this and most of them don't deserve articles, either. When you have to start citing Youtube and Twitter to fill out the citations for a biographical article, that's a sign the subject doesn't meet notability. 109.78.213.136 (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete besides for the DailyDot article, none of the secondary sources seem to give significant coverage of the subject. IntrepidContributor (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said, the only arguably notable thing that's happened in his career was pretending to have been shoved by Maxine Waters. Maybe he deserves some brief mention on a page about political internet humor/memes. fi (talk) 08:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Horse Eye's Back. I also found four additional sources which had not been considered yet (I have expanded the article using these and the Daily Dot article):
- "Michael Tracey: when does anti-war become pro-Putin?" (19 April 2022) - Unherd piece which focuses exclusively on Tracey and his Ukraine/Putin contrarianism
- "Tankies Sinking In Ukraine’s Muddy Fields" (March 25, 2022) - non-trivial coverage in Above The Law, discussing Tracey alongside Aaron Maté and Glenn Greenwald as three prominent examples of contemporary tankies

In addition, there were shorter but still non-trivial discussions of Tracey's views in Foreign Policy [30] and The Bulwark [31].

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes GNG easily. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. Thriley (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Rinderer[edit]

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

No evidence found for any notability, even in a Lichtensteiner newspaper she gets one passing mention only[32], other Google hits[33] are also statistics and passing mentions only. Fram (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Europe. Fram (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON (she is 16 years old) and while Tagblatt in Switzerland notes that she scored 2 goals for Triesen in the Women's 2nd League, and the GettyImages photo of her U-19 UEFA throw-in playing for the LI national team is ace, there isn't any coverage of her to date beyond passing mentions and stats to justify an article per WP:BASIC. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with User:Cielquiparle's assessment of it being WP:TOOSOON and the significant coverage just is not there. Her age and stats lead me to believe she is an up-and-comer, so her notability could change rather quickly. For this reason I am also open to moving to draft space as an WP:ATD, though the content and page history are so minimal, it may be better to start from scratch when/if she reaches the GNG threshold. Frank Anchor 18:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is little to no evidence of Wikipedia notability here. This is an easy delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 09:39, 25 September 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!} 07:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moderates (Liberal Party of Australia)[edit]

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

The moderate faction of the Liberal Party is a term that is used by the media. Whether a person is a member of a faction is speculation and this speculation can lead to misinformation appearing in this Wikipedia Article. It is for the reasons mentioned thereof that I believe that this article can be categorised as "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes" and "any other content not suitable for an encyclopaedia" GA Melbourne (talk) 07:19, 21 September 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 September 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If reliable sources consistently point out the faction exists (and consistently point out the same set of members), it probably exists. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While these sources are reliable, such articles all seem to be gossip columns and aren't reporting fact. In my opinion, the only facts these articles report are personal differences between MPs which can be noted on each respective MP's wiki article. GA Melbourne (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is one half of the Australian version of Wets and dries, and has been reported in more than enough articles to be notable. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even a cursory glance at any form of Australian political coverage will reveal legions of coverage around the conflicts between the Moderate and Right-wing factions of the Liberal Party. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources, including RS Australian Financial Review, Sydney Morning Herald, The Conversation, ABC News, and SBS News frequently cover these factions, contrary to the nom, these are not gossipy columns but cover them directly and in detail, especially 1, 2, 3. The terminology is also covered in The Economist, with one paragraph discussing The Liberals’ future is especially uncertain. The party lost some of its safest seats, and its moderate politicians. Some warn that a populist turn is now likely, see here, though it might not be SIGCOV, and the moderate terminology per the article is also used by a former Prime Minister. This IMO does not violate WP:NOTNEWS and passes WP:GNG. VickKiang 22:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've got an element of sympathy with the nomination here because officially there are no factions in the Liberal Party of Australia. "Because the Liberal party lacks formal factions, scholars have disagreed about the particular tendencies that can be found within its ranks."^[1] Of course this doesn't mean there are not factions and in practice there are clear ideological divisions within the party and MPs do group together on issues (and around leadership change). But this is in stark contrast to the Australian Labor Party which institutionalises factional politics. Unlike the Labor Party, where there are clear, named factions (Unity, Socialist Left etc), there are no named factions in the Liberal Party - so this article, as it currently stands, is misleading to that extent. That said, there are clearly sources going back decades which discuss factions in the Party.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] The difficulty is that the terms vary. Does this article need improvement? Yes. Does it need renaming? Possibly. Does it need better sourcing? Yes. But none of those answers indicate a need for deletion.

References

^ McAllister, Ian (1991). "Party Adaptation and Factionalism within the Australian Party System". American Journal of Political Science. 35 (1): 212. doi:10.2307/2111444. ISSN 0092-5853.
^ Patrick, A (21 March 2018). "Vic Liberals 'ripped apart' by faction fight". Australian Financial Review. ProQuest 2015424308.
^ Hawker, Geoffrey (2005). "Comings and Goings: Liberal Party Factions in New South Wales". AQ: Australian Quarterly. 77 (5): 15–40. doi:10.2307/20638361. ISSN 1443-3605.
^ "The War Within". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 4 July 2022.
^ O'Brien, Patrick (1985). The Liberals: Factions, Feuds, and Fancies. Viking. ISBN 978-0-670-80893-9.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Andre🚐 16:58, 25 September 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!} 07:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of RIAA member labels[edit]

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

This is a pointless List of RIAA member labels, and merely copies their own website. It could be made into a list of notable member labels (those with articles) but serves no purpose presently, except to promote the RIAA. Theroadislong (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails all notability tests as most content has no evidence of any notability. Serves no rational purpose other than to apparently replicate the contents of a website. However, it even fails to do that. There are entities on this list not included on the website. Utterly pointless and contrary to the tenets of Wikipedia. Possible CSD candidate as an article lacking in any significance Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a directory for lists of record labels. Furthermore, it fails WP:CSC. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be not notable for Wikipedia --Bigneeerman (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the film does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards to qualify for a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Pursuers[edit]

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

This is a non-notable film that resulted in a non-notable spinoff TV series. My WP:BEFORE search reveals obviously non-RS, 1, or non-SIGCOV, 2, 3, 4 refs, with the second ref being a vanity press (tried to add it, but I had rv my edit due to it being unreliable). The 4th ref is also trivial, revealing just two hits. Otherwise, the current refs are trivial databases except for a one paragraph, non-SIGCOV review here from Radio Times. Therefore, this clearly fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG, and IMHO should be deleted. VickKiang 07:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable cast and appears to be sufficiently covered to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am seeing several Google Books results about the film, either with a solid paragraph or as a brief listing. Since this film came out in 1961, and it is not a very famous film, I think it could be likely that information about the film could be buried in print sources from around that time that would not be directly available online. I'm not sure which way to lean in this case and hope that someone can do a deep dive in databases of UK print sources to see if they can find anything. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, current sources do not satisfy WP:GNG and I can't find any that do. @Erik and Necrothesp: please ping me if you are successful in finding significant coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, As the creator of the article, I believe that although minor, the film has enough significant references, not just trivial mentions, including the BFI,[34] Allmovie,[35] TV Guide,[36] and the Radio Times here (which is a published as well as an online source). The film is a pulp b-movie dramatisation of a significant event, the 1960 capture of nazi Adolph Eichman and is one of the movies in the Category:Films about Nazi fugitives and Category:Films about Nazi hunters; and therefore arguably itself a historic artefact. It is also listed in the filmographies of notable actors, writers, producers. If it is removed, there will be no link to click on in these to discover what this film is about. Deleting it is a negative act. It will not benefit Wikipedia and its readers, but only make it the poorer as regards helpful information. Beryl reid fan (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are we really saying database entries are significant, and ignoring WP:NFILM and WP:GNG at all? Therefore arguably itself a historic artefact-false, films don't inherit notability because of an event, nor does actors. On the cast, I don't think this satisfies this: The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career. The Leonard Martin Film Guide does not count towards notability because it's a capsule review. A collection of trivial refs is WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, and elevating databases to non-trivial coverage violates presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database. By this logic, if we delete any film is a negative act, why don't we give an article to every film listed on IMDb with one notable actor somehow working on it? Many thanks! VickKiang 11:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the deletion of this article would not mean that The Pursuers would not be mentioned at all anywhere on Wikipedia. It is and will continue to be mentioned at the relevant cast and crew members' articles. The goal here is to have an encyclopedic article, not just a database entry. Anyone can make the case of any old film that it is relevant for having an article, but that's why we have notability standards, to prove that case through how independent sources have significant coverage about the film. BFI, AllMovie, and TV Guide will all have database-style pages for films that will not be considered notable on Wikipedia. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is WP:NOTDATABASE. We need encyclopedic content where this "historical artefact" is concerned. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I went through newspapers.com for "The Pursuers" in England, 1962. There are passing mentions like [37] and https://www.newspapers.com/image/799376030/?terms=%22The%20Pursuers%22&match=1 but I'm just not seeing notability. It'd be weird for a film to have significant coverage in 1960s print but be barely recognized contemporaneously in newspapers. Most sources, then, will probably be reviews made much later. Ovinus (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 22:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it reasonable to expect that a b-film like this from 1961 should have 'significant coverage' available online? Because it is minor does not mean it is not notable. I have tried to show a wider historic significance. The danger with the notability rule, IMHO, is that it limits the films Wikipedia can have articles on to the usual roster of classic or well known films (those most likely to have 'significant coverage'), just like every other encyclopaedia. Isn't Wikipedia potentially more interesting than that? I believe these rules should be questioned rather than used to intimidate editors (please see the comments on Necrothesp's user page, re. this, which I agree with). E.g. I don't find that in this process editors have necessarily gone out of their way to 'avoid the use of sarcastic language' as per the guidelines. I've seen other editors articles taken apart in this way. Decent articles destroyed, because the Wiki police (or Nazis!) decide to move in. There are many more articles deserving of deletion than this one. Beryl reid fan (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC) [reply]

This comment IMHO seems to be a very textbook example WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS WP:ITSNOTABLE, as the closer will decide your accusation of us being Nazis is accurate. Thanks, and I won't comment further! VickKiang (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, current sources do not satisfy WP:GNG by any stretch of the imagination. They are either cast listings or extremely short synopses. It might have some notable actors but notability is not inherited. It's not notable because it's a B movie and no one found it interesting enough to discuss it in depth and detail. You can scrape the Internet barrel and find dozens of such sources. And while I'm here, IMO anyone who attacks hard working volunteer Wikipedia editors as Nazis should probably be banned from ever writing an article again - just sayin' . (M&B - it's Marvellous Beer, I was brought up on it). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 28 September 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 APO Hiking Society. ✗plicit 06:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tuloy Na Tuloy Pa Rin ang Pasko[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG, and per previous discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andito Tayo Para sa Isa't Isa and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Shines (2019 song). Chompy Ace 06:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Philippines. Chompy Ace 06:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NSONG, even the fourth and last source. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the first since talks about APO Hiking. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to APO Hiking Society as an alternative to deletion. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to APO Hiking Society as an WP:ATD. Five sources were presented as a quantity in the page, but the quality is not on an article-worthy level. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @CruzRamiss2002: I don't understand. The 1st, 4th and the 5th sources mentions the song, I think the 4rt and 5th may pass NSONG under the rule Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups., why?, because it mentions the cover version of Ben&Ben. I am not an expert on how Wikipedia rules work, I am just participating and I have no idea if it will pass or not. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, read the last part carefully, "Quantity over quality"; almost seemingly passes the Wikipedia criteria of standards, but it doesn't sufficient enough to fit as a standalone article (it should always be "Quality over equal to but not equal to quantity"). And lastly for my advice to your last statement, if you don't know or understand anything, highly suggested to don't do anything until you have an idea about reading the WP:RULES. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to APO Hiking Society. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Love Together, Hope Together[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG, and per previous discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andito Tayo Para sa Isa't Isa and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Shines (2019 song). Chompy Ace 06:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Philippines. Chompy Ace 06:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess that the Lionheartv source may save the article, why?, because the information has the context on what the song is about. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But LionhearTV is unreliable. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG (see SAT below).

Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.gmanetwork.com/entertainment/showbiznews/news/82636/love-together-hope-together-gma-network-2021-christmas-station-id-makes-the-season-brighter/story	Promotional crap	✘ No
https://mb.com.ph/2021/11/13/gma-network-2021-christmas-station-id-makes-the-season-brighter		✘ No
https://bandera.inquirer.net/297729/tree-of-hope-bidang-bida-sa-love-together-hope-together-2021-christmas-station-id-ng-gma		✘ No
https://manilastandard.net/showbitz/tv-movies/370045/making-this-season-brighter-with-gma-christmas-station-id.html		✘ No
https://www.philstar.com/pilipino-star-ngayon/showbiz/2021/11/15/2141403/love-together-hope-together-mensahe-ng-kapuso		✘ No
https://www.lionheartv.net/2021/11/music-video-review-love-together-hope-together-encourages-to-love-another-to-give-hope		✘ 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}}.

—hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HueMan1, fails WP:NSONG with no WP:SIGCOV at all. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 11:09, 26 September 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. Proposals for merging can be discussed on the relevant talk pages. ✗plicit 07:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patel Nagar metro station[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:STATION and WP:GNG. Searched and could not come up with anything of particular note. Mr.weedle (talk) 06:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mr.weedle (talk) 06:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting a random station in the middle of the line creates navigational and consistency issues. If most of the other stations on this line article are notable (I did not check if this is true), then this one should be kept to keep the navigational continuity. If most of the other stations are not notable, then a new batch AfD should be made to deal with all the stations at once and to avoid such unfixable navigational holes. Jumpytoo Talk 07:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jumpytoo, but rather than a batch AfD all the stations should be proposed for merging into some suitable article (most likely the article about the line that serves them). Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. No point deleting a single station like this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep NOT per above. I think this just about clears GNG. See [38] [39] [40]. I think the keep rationales above are flawed, but have to say keep per the reasons I have outlined. A merge to Blue Line (Delhi Metro) would also be acceptable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is to Keep this article (although it might be bundled in a future nomination) even though there is a disagreement over whether GNG has been met. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GGICO (Dubai Metro)[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability for a train station or general WP:GNG Mr.weedle (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mr.weedle (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting a random station in the middle of the line creates navigational and consistency issues. If most of the other stations on this line article are notable (I did not check if this is true), then this one should be kept to keep the navigational continuity. If most of the other stations are not notable, then a new batch AfD should be made to deal with all the stations at once and to avoid such unfixable navigational holes. Jumpytoo Talk 08:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jumpytoo, but rather than a batch AfD all the stations should be proposed for merging into some suitable article (most likely Red Line (Dubai Metro). Additionally, I strongly suspect most sources about this station will be in Arabic. I don't speak or read that language, but putting the title of the Arabic article (ar:جي جي كو (مترو دبي))) into Google brings up results that are more in-depth (about something) than the first couple of pages of English results. This needs attention from someone fluent in Arabic. Thryduulf (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. No point deleting a single station like this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Metro stations are actually generally considered notable (yes, yes, WP:NEXIST and all - train stations indeed have no inherent notability per WP:NTRAINSTATION), for instance the UK metro system's stations or Hong Kong's MTR. Additionally, I note this article is sourced and we have in any case a pass of WP:GNG, which therefore satisfies WP:STATION. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a GNG pass here. Ref 1 is a map, Ref 2 is of questionable reliability, and regardless GNG needs more than 1 source, Ref 3 briefly mentions the station in 1 sentence, and Ref 4 only mentions the station's name. If you think this meets GNG, you and I are reading a different guideline. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:34, 21 September 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 Rebecca Maye Holiday. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Necromancy Cottage, Or, The Black Art of Gnawing On Bones[edit]

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

This book does not appear to be notable - I can't seem to find any real coverage in independent, reliable sources. The little there is appears to be in personal blogs. It certainly doesn't appear to meet any of the rules-of-thumb in WP:NBOOK. firefly ( t · c ) 08:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 08:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rebecca Maye Holiday, though that page itself has questionable notability, the only coverage I could find was in the form of interviews with the author or was in blogs, no reliable secondary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rebecca Maye Holiday; I concur with their assessment. The book seems to fail GNG. The author's notability can be discussed separately in another AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 26 September 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 07:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Vale Cotton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Mason Vale Cotton

Actor who has already been found not to satisfy acting notability twice. The most recent deletion discussion was in August 2020 and was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mason Vale Cotton (3rd nomination). No roles are described that are more recent than 2020. Neither the Desperate Housewives role or the Mad Men role are lead roles. Nothing has changed in the past two years. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and California. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete same as last time, non-GNG, minor roles. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satifies WP:NACTOR easily. His two series credits were co-starring roles, one nominated for a SAG award as part of an ensemble cast, for which bit players and extras aren't eligible. Some of the refs below confirm starring or co-starring status in both network series. A supporting leading role is the equivalent of a co-starring role. NACTOR only requires "significant roles" in multiple projects.

https://gothamist.com/arts-entertainment/kiernan-shipka-shares-memories-of-all-8-bobby-drapers
https://www.eonline.com/photos/30965/mad-men-stars-then-and-now
https://www.hellomagazine.com/film/gallery/2020060390915/desperate-housewives-children-where-are-they-now-2020/8/
https://www.closerweekly.com/posts/eva-longoria-reveals-which-desperate-housewives-stars-still-close-with-87180/
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/249848405/

The article requires flagging with a citations needed banner, not deletion. IMDb says he has two upcoming projects, so he hasn't left the business. 5Q5|^✉ 12:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They don't seem to be bit parts, I think ACTOR is satisfied. They aren't the starring roles, but prominent enough. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, you already voted "Delete", what is your true view of the status of this article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I'd not stricken my vote above. Reconsidered after reviewing the information. Oaktree b (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR based on major roles in Mad Men and Desperate Housewives. Novemberjazz 02:31, 28 September 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 03:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrizio Caramagna[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Italy. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find a few single-line quotes and various listings of his books (which are all books of aphorisms, presumably not his own writing). Not enough for notability. (I also note that there is not an article about him in the Italian WP and this seems to have been created by an SPA.) Lamona (talk) 02:53, 23 September 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!} 07:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shields Junction[edit]

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

Page, in my view, fails WP:GNG as a junction, rather than a physical station/depot etc. Most of the page talks about the Glasgow Airport Rail Link, which already has its own page. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed per community census that not all rail stations (or junctions) are notable Mr.weedle (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect No independent notability outside that of the individual lines which meet at this junction. I would not oppose a redirect to Paisley Canal line. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Trainsandotherthings. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've failed to find independent sigcov in my search attempts. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this is cool. Definitely bearing it in mind as a future timesaver. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:21, 22 September 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 23:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jallad No. 1[edit]

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

Dharmendra is in this film but that doesn't make the film notable. Per Wikipedia:NOTDATABASE, this film should not be included. No sources found in Rediff.com. Surprised by the lack of sourcing--must be a low-key film. DareshMohan (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete No reviews found in a search. Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 22:19, 27 September 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 11:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Revenge: Geeta Mera Naam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page has been deleted before. No improvement in sourcing. Per Wikipedia:NOTDATABASE, this film should not be included. No sources found in Rediff.com. DareshMohan (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found nothing usable in a search. This fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 00:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Deleted in an earlier AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, concur that no reliable sources could be found, Bollywood Hungama lists zero reviews from critics. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Portobello FC[edit]

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

Could not locate any reliable sources; sources currently referenced are either non-independent or self-published blogs, and a WP:BEFORE only turns up with similarly self-published sites (no indication of fact-checking etc). As a result, the subject fails the general notability guideline. eviolite (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and United Kingdom. eviolite (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree doesn't meet notability requirements for WP:CLUB, scope is not national in scale. Mr.weedle (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - plays well below the level considered notable by WP:FOOTY and no evidence of in-depth coverage in reliable independent secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. If by any chance it gets kept, the article should be moved to Portobello F.C. to be consistent with all other English football club articles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable article. Found nothing usable in a search. --Bigneeerman (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All coverage seems to be either from the club, related parties or self-published sources. No sign of detailed coverage in reliable, independent sources. Spike 'em (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any coverage. Nfitz (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A club playing at this level is unlikely to have the sort of coverage or notability that would justify it having its own Wikipedia article and I can see nothing that would suggest that this club is an exception. Dunarc (talk) 22:39, 26 September 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. I don't think a third relist will resolve the lack of consensus here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mariatu Bala Usman[edit]

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

Article has very little information, as there is very little of it to find online. Simple details like DOB, place of birth aren't published online, and the few things that do include her only have slight mentions and quotes, including the references on the page. echidnaLives (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Nigeria. echidnaLives (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Unclear on WP:NPOL - is she ~~a legislator~~elected? Limited coverage, and it is all primary. No in depth analysis or commentary, or profiling of her as an individual. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to be a legislator to pass WP:NPOL. It includes "politicians and judges who have held ... (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office". Phil Bridger (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger: oops, yes, I meant to say it is not clear if they are elected. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is also not necessary to be elected to pass WP:NPOL. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL makes numerous references to legislating and elections: "members of legislative bodies", "just being an elected local official", "applies to people who have been elected to such offices". I believe knowing how Usman came to office and whether her role is legislative is pertinent to this deletion discussion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But they all come after the word "or", so are irrelevant to people who qualify under the wording that I quoted above. For example all except two of the executive branch of the American federal government are non-elected and all of them are non-legislators, but they still qualify under NPOL. Guidelines are written in sentences, not as disconnected words. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though the references are all mere mentions of the topic than dedicated coverage, this is really a good number of references for a female commissioner from press-restricted Northern Nigeria where women rarely get a spotlight. This is a public office that comes on in assignments, current affairs and the every day cirriculum in schools. She is legally appointed like every other Nigerian state commisioners on Wikipedia. Very relevant to WikiProject:Nigeria and wherever it's wikilinked. Danidamiobi (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Danidamiobi, and Notability exist per WP:NEXIST. An@ss_koko^{(speak up)} 09:12, 21 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larson International[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:COMPANY. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks, Companies, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable amusement park company which has created some notable amusement ride types such as the fireball. The company's product is also present in a number of major amusement parks such as Six Flags and Cedar Point. ThePoi (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourcing found. Having fun rides in an amusement park isn't enough for GNG. Only hits I get are the company's website as number 1, number 2 is this Wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Unfortunately, this would be an article I would not want to delete, but with WP:NCORP, it does not seem to pass. It does have coverage in trade journals (such as Amusement Business and Amusement Today), but NCORP specifies that would not be enough. I would support this article coming back in the future when sources are there, but other manufacturers make flat rides that are non-notable either. Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crafton Wallace[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage could be found on the subject. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 01:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and United States of America. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 01:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NMMA not ranked in top 10. Mr.weedle (talk) 04:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to be not notable and without any reliable sources --Bigneeerman (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to fightmatrix his highest ranking ever was #92 and he lost both his UFC fights so he fails to meet WP:NMMA. I could find no evidence of him being a notable kickboxer nor could I find multiple cases of significant independent coverage. Fight databases, youtube videos, and fight announcements are insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Polakowski (fighter)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage could be found on the subject. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 01:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and United States of America. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 01:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NMMA not in top 10. Mr.weedle (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing to show he's close to notability as a kickboxer or MMA fighter. He had a total of 4 MMA fights, three against the same person. Appearing on the Ultimate Fighter show is insufficient to show notability and there doesn't appear to be any significant independent coverage that would support a claim of meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:16, 26 September 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!} 01:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf Alfonso[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage could be found on the subject. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 01:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and United States of America. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 01:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not close to meeting WP:NMMA as his highest ever ranking at fightmatrix was 105th. He lost more fights than he won and there is no significant independent coverage of him that shows he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:10, 26 September 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 Elizabeth Jenkins (writer)#Biographer. This is a messy discussion. There is reasonably clear consensus that "Elizabeth the Great" as a descriptor for Elizabeth II doesn't quite hold water at this time. There's less clear consensus as to what to do with the title; there's many "delete" opinions, but without an articulated rationale for obliterating the page history, I'm interpreting those as "this DAB page should not exist as it does". The argument for redirecting to the biographer has decent support, and has a basis in DABMENTION. Some !votes suggest deleting before redirecting, but I see no basis in policy to remove the history; this discussion prevents unilateral restoration of the DAB page anyhow. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth the Great[edit]

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

Not a plausible search term, bad disambigs— one is a book title, not a common nickname, and the other is extremely WP:recentist Dronebogus (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as creator: This has 219 pageviews since the 8th, so I'm not sure how it can be an implausible search term. Both linked articles pass MOS:DABMENTION, and I was careful to avoid the pitfall of linking to Elizabeth I and Elizabeth II (which both currently fail DABMENTION). This is a term people are looking for, and the DAB takes people to either of two pages that explain the two contexts in which it's been used. That is the exact purpose of a disambiguation page. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh also, Dronebogus, can you clarify: Do you want this deleted, or do you want to restore Tavix' redirect to Queen Elizabeth, or to restore Heroeswithmetaphors's redirect to Elizabeth I? Targeting Elizabeth Jenkins (writer) § Biographer—matching Elizabeth the Great (biography), currently the only other page with that title—would also be an option. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want it deleted but a redirect to the bio is fine Dronebogus (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid disambiguation page. This would be a reasonable redirect to either target, so a disambiguation page is fine. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the person trawling around various talk pages to try to get input on this (btw, if someone might mention this discussion on the semi-protected talk page Talk:Elizabeth II, as clearly I personally can't): I agree there's a degree of recentism here, but given that it's a navigation aid rather purported substantive, I don't see that as a terrible vice. And indeed, both subjects (the actual people that is, rather than subsidiary articles) fail MOS:DABMENTION, as does a third candidate who is sometimes so-called -- just not in our article -- Elizabeth of Russia. In terms of long-term appropriateness I'd guess that QE1 > EoR > QE2, but the long-term can look after itself. At present I'm inclined to say weak keep as threeway DAB to all three of above primary subjects, notwithstanding the three-way failure to actually mention the phrase in those articles. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to adding an entry relating to Elizabeth of Russia if there's somewhere to point to, but at the moment Special:Search/"Elizabeth of Russia" "Elizabeth the Great" has 0 results. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, DABMENTION-wise it's a three-way fail. But there are off-wiki references to the Tsarina as "the Great" -- the Russians are maybe rather Great-happy. As a navigational courtesy I think it makes sense; in terms of a strict reading of out style guidance, due weight, and having reliable sources possibly not: but that's true of all of them. And to be clear, I'm suggesting the targets should be Elizabeth I, Elizabeth of Russia and Elizabeth II. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose that. There are times that it makes sense to IAR around DABMENTION, but I don't see why this ought to be one of them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a huge fan of IAR, but I'd argue this is more in the realm of WP:COMMONSENSE (with the usual "no such thing, and neither of those" stipulations). Or more specifically, "don't apply one particular piece of style guidance beyond the point of utility". Ultimately, DABs are there to disambiguate descriptions of topics, not exact textual descriptions. The above are sometimes so-described -- otherwise we wouldn't bother having the page at all -- and we have articles on all three of the topics being specified, albeit editors have deemed mentioning it not to be due weight to mention the phrase. So arguably, we're outside of the scope of DABMENTION here: "If a topic does not have an article of its own [...]." We need enough context in the DAB page itself to avoid too much WP:ASTONISHment for people looking for discussion of the exact phrase -- which currently they won't even find in the 'reactions' article for Liz2, so an unduly roundabout wild goose chase there. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tamzin. Useful and proper disambiguation page. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it does no harm and may be useful to some readers; more so as a dab page than the redirect it replaced. Waggers TALK 12:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elizabeth II– term is pretty much never used for the other individuals given that the article didn’t even exist until a few days ago. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other way around. It's been a redirect to Elizabeth I for a decade, and there's book-length sources describing her as such. Descriptions of Liz2 as the Great are recentist boosterism, churned out as performant, hagiographic royalism and ostentatious rending of garments by a few notoriously bumptious and self-serving individuals. Unlikely to be of any long-term historical significance, but readers may come looking in the meantime. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. It targeted Elizabeth I from 2012 to 2015, but then Queen Elizabeth from then until I created the DAB the other day. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, "it was created a decade ago as a redirect to Liz1", I should have said. My lamentable lack of precision doesn't change the counterpoint being made. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid Dab page. MB 15:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aren't we kinda getting carried away here? GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II does not mention this term, meaning it is not a useful disambiguation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning that it's been given the wrong target. The topic in each case is the person so-described, not subsidiary articles (that the term keeps flipping in and out of). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it means that "...as referred to in some reactions to her death" is a bit too much right now as it appears misleading if it doesn't appear in the body of the text. Not only that, but there are now people who are trying to have her be referred to as "Elizabeth the Faithful." I think that it is odd why this was a redirect to Elizabeth II since 2015 when the disambig references reactions to her passing in 2022 and doesn't even have the text used. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That article quotes Boris Johnson using the term in footnote 16. (Contra 109, I think this links to the exact right pages, so long as neither queen's article uses the term.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In a quote in a reference, rather than a footnote as such. I think that's an extremely slight 'mention' to hang targeting the link at on, given that we have an entire article on each of the substantive topics as a much more generally useful target. In the alternative, list the book and the 'reactions' as separate DAB entries. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – far too recentist. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To refer to Elizabeth I and Elizabeth of Russia? The apocryphal Mao quote about the French Revolution springs to mind! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we're getting ahead of our selves. 'Elizabeth the Great' i've never seen used for Elizabeth II apart from people on Wikipedia insisting it is her title. (personally I don't see what the fuss is all about), I think it should point to Yelizaveta Romanova and Elizabeth Tudor if it is to stay at all. There aren't many 'Queen Elizabeths' as is. EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The delete votes make no sense. This page gets a lot of views, so something should exist here; if not a dab page, then it should be redirected somewhere, as it did for over a decade. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. Trouble is we're left with a choice between a middling-quality DAB, or a worse-quality redirect. But stonewalling visitors to it to let the perfect be the enemy of the... admittedly at best moderately good, is kinda spiting ourselves. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reason given above by User:109.255.211.6 and EmilySarah99. --Bduke (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elizabeth_Jenkins_(writer)#Biographer or delete. Per WP:DABRELATED, we are to [i]nclude articles only if the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article. For the second article, Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II, the term is not mentioned in the article's text, much less described, so it should not be included in the dab page. The fact that an article has a footnoted citation to a news piece with a headline that contains the phrase does not render that article a valid dab target; contrary to the article creator's claim that the fact that the article quotes Boris Johnson using the term in footnote 16 is enough to warrant inclusion in a disambiguation page, it would be plainly absurd to claim that this qualifies as the term being described in the target article. Moreover, for this to be a valid disambiguation page, there would need to be more than one article that is a valid target; we cannot have a valid dab page for which only one article exists. given that we only have one valid target, this should be either retargeted to Elizabeth_Jenkins_(writer)#Biographer, a section of a biography that describes a 1958 book by the title "Elizabeth the Great" or it should be deleted altogether. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Liz's question regarding whether or not there is a logical use for a page with this title whether or not it is the use it currently has, I think that the only possible sensible use is in a redirect given that it's mentioned in the text of a single article. A search indicates that there is use of the biography as a source, but there's only one article that actually mentions the term "Elizabeth the Great". — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that speaks to whether it has a use, but rather whether it's MOS-compliant as a DAB. Which latter I agree it's not. The use being to mitigate the amount of WP:ASTONISHment that readers looking for the Liz1-related content will experience getting sent there without much in the way of context, and the huge such that readers looking for either of the other two would get in such a case. So I think 'use' speaks to retaining it, flawed though it is. In the longer term redirecting to Liz1 (or that related article) might be a good solution, but in the short run I think we'd be misdirecting almost all our traffic to that target, out of misguided legalism. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are there numerous RS's that show that Elizabeth the Great is commonly used? InvadingInvader (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Numerous" and "commonly" would be marginal. It's certainly adequately sourceable: we have the major reference of the Liz1 bio, and many WP:RECENT mentions of people floating the term for Liz2. But the articles don't deem them to be of sufficient weight to bother mentioning. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the book The term is too recent to be linked to Liz II imo, and there is well established book with that title. Unless and until we have a book of the same title for Liz II, this DAB makes no sense to me. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One book and some instances of current usage (no doubt influenced by her death) do not establish that she was/is generally known that way. Kablammo (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two different 'she's, note. Hence the logic if it being a DAB, not a redirect. And 'generally known' isn't the applicable standard here. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting though I sense that individuals with differing opinions will think there is an obvious consensus but I don't see it and people are still commenting here today. There are several points of view here (Keep, Delete, several different Redirects) and I think editors participating here should look through the comments that have already have been made and the rationales those editors have given for their opinions. My question is whether or not there is a logical use for a page with this title whether or not it is the use it currently has.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Far too WP:RECENT. Let's re-assess in, say 80 years. Thparkth (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The most likely individual described by this term has been dead for over 400 years (and the biography most prominently doing so's been around for getting on for the 80 years you suggest), so only WP:TOOSOON in the most extreme eventualist of takes. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the book. Neither person has been notably referred to by that term. DFlhb (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this qualifies as a disambiguation page. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to the book or Delete per Red-tailed Hawk. DeCausa (talk) 10:39, 27 September 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberto Vendemiati[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of sources available on the person. I don't think this counts, but it's the best I could find. SWinxy (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Italy. SWinxy (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolutely Gimondi'a domestique at Salvarani, well known in Italy. In addition to that beautiful article linked by the author of the deletion proposal (other that doesn't count is very detailed), there are many others and many cards / profiles in the various cycling databases. Absolutely more important than hundreds and hundreds of pages of domestiques, present on Wikipedia, and of which no one would dream of requesting the cancellation. --Kasper2006 (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Well known" is not our guideline on notability, nor is the amount of databases a person is in. WP:N is. SWinxy (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have expanded the article and added additional sources and information. The source you listed definitely counts, it is from a prominent Italian newspaper and centers on Vendemiati himself, rather than a passing mention. He also does meet WP:NCYCLING. Seacactus 13 (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of NCYCLING? (And GNG should still be established even for sports notability.) SWinxy (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for more policy based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after new article additions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment probably is famous, but we need sources. [41] from an Italian museum. That's about the best I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 21 September 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 WP:SNOW keep. So Why 10:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carlsen–Niemann controversy[edit]

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

WP:POVFORK with clear WP:RECENTISM bias. There is nothing here that can't be handled by the Hans Niemann and Magnus Carlsen articles. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is widespread media coverage also outside chess-focused news sources (as evident from the references list and just any basic web search). This is one of the largest controversies in chess history, I'm sure it will pass the test of time (and if it doesn't, just nominate it again). ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This has been a pretty widely covered event, even outside of regular chess publications. Since the continuation of the controversy to the Julian Baer Generations Cup, there does not seem to be an appropriate merge target in my mind. To cover in either Carlsen or Neimann's page specifically seems like it would result in an WP:XY redirect to me from this merge. With the amount of news coverage being significant and from WP:RS and also covering multiple chess tournaments, I can see nothing else to do, but to keep. TartarTorte 00:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Julian Baer cup is a minor on line event, not rated by FIDE (the game's international governing body). Carlsen's behaviour there is really just a postscript to the Sinquefield Cup incident. We don't have separate articles on the Kasparov-Polgar touch-move controversy or the Kramnik-Topalov Toiletgate controversy, so why this one? Because we have more internet now? How is this particular "scandal" more important than the others which nobody proposed separate articles for? In 50 years time, would you really expect to see a separate article on this in The Encyclopedia of Chess, rather than just covering it in the players' respective articles? We should add "internetism" to "recentism" as potential sources of bias IMO. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without regard to FIDE's lack of governance over the Julian Baer Generations Cup, Carlsen's near immediate resignation got coverage far beyond chess publications. ~~I think that So long as an article passes GNG, then it should be kept.~~ While it's certainly related to the controversy coming out of the Sinquefield Cup, the significant coverage of it is partially due to there not being a whole lot left on the chess calendar this year in terms of notable events, especially that Carlsen and Niemann would end up facing off against each other in. There's another tournament in the Meltwater Champions Chess Tour where it's possible they'd play each other, but that is not FIDE sanctioned. The only FIDE sanctioned event in which I could see them facing off is possibly the World Team Championship, but to be honest, I don't know if (and to some extent doubt that) Niemann will be on the US team for the tournament. The time at which it happened in the chess calendar for 2022 is quite unfortunate when it comes to determining recentism. TartarTorte 01:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the controversy peters out to nothing, as the Kramnik-Topalov controversy did, this article can be merged into the biographies of the players. But until then, there is all this coverage to deal with, especially in non-chess publications. So a separate article seems to be in order right now. Conversely, if the controversy mushrooms into something serious, depending on what that something is, some other merge target may present itself. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is a widely talked about event, with many sources and all that good stuff. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a rather historic event in the modern history of chess. BD2412 T 01:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The events have been widely covered by a slew of major news sources, it's been described as unprecedented by numerous chess authorities, and it will very likely affect the careers of both players (and perhaps the chess world) rather significantly moving forward. AviationFreak💬 01:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very notable scandal Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significantly covered as a shocking upset, an online beef, an underdog story, a cheating scandal, an intriguing silence, a butt joke and an unprecedented show of tactlessness by the supposed world's best. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per, InedibleHulk. Schierbecker (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Davey2116 (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom, per WP:10YT. This is just passing social media gossip. Yes it will be mentioned in future biographies of Carlsen and possibly Niemann (if he's judged worthy of a bio), but it won't have more than a couple of pages dedicated to it. It is clearly WP:UNDUE to give it a whole article. By the way the article includes several links to youtube and other unreliable sources. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the biggest controversy in chess of recent years, widely covered in mainstream press, and will be remembered for years to come even if it stops now. It satisfies GNG. Hzh (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG. It is widely covered by independent, secondary and reliable sources. --Assyrtiko (talk) 09:58, 21 September 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] McAllister, Ian (1991). "Party Adaptation and Factionalism within the Australian Party System". American Journal of Political Science. 35 (1): 212. doi:10.2307/2111444. ISSN 0092-5853.

[2] Patrick, A (21 March 2018). "Vic Liberals 'ripped apart' by faction fight". Australian Financial Review. ProQuest 2015424308.

[3] Hawker, Geoffrey (2005). "Comings and Goings: Liberal Party Factions in New South Wales". AQ: Australian Quarterly. 77 (5): 15–40. doi:10.2307/20638361. ISSN 1443-3605.

[4] "The War Within". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 4 July 2022.

[5] O'Brien, Patrick (1985). The Liberals: Factions, Feuds, and Fancies. Viking. ISBN 978-0-670-80893-9.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]