The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. The list is neither endless nor duplicative and is limited to notable homicides that have Wikipedia articles already written about them. Cbl62 (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC) Also passes WP:NLIST with multiple sources (even books) discussing and connecting homicides in California as a notable topic. Examples are set forth in the "References" and "Further reading" sections. Cbl62 (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not duplication. The categories are incomplete and do not include many forms of homicide, including those in the California genocide. This article collects in one place notable California homicides and provides a richness of information not available in a mere category. It includes summaries of each incident as well as sortable columns by date and number of victims. I only began the list two days ago, but when it's done, it will be fully sourced and probably one of my best contributions in 15 years of work at Wikipedia. Cbl62 (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for "who decides" which homicides get included, it's a matter of notability and community consensus, like any Wikipedia article or list. Cbl62 (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: "[When] it's done, it will be fully sourced and probably one of my best contributions in 15 years of work at Wikipedia." WP:DRAFT, WP:DRAFTIFY, WP:AFDTODRAFT. Why are you creating content in article space that's a draft and incomplete? AldezD (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AldezD: The list is already main-space ready. It will just keep getting better. Cbl62 (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: There's a section titled "Polices shootouts and ambushes". This is not main-space ready. AldezD (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for catching one misplaced character in a 41,000 85,614-byte article. Feel free to leave any similar comments on the article talk page ... or just fix it. Cbl62 (talk)
Either delete or rename. This article will never be a list of all homicides in California as stated in its title. If it is intended to be a list of notable homicides, then criteria for notability (e.g., an article already written on the English Wikipedia, newspaper or other citations available, link to a WP policy, etc.) should be in a hidden header because every homicide has been notable to somebody. As it currently appears, the article likely lists only a tiny percentage of the its stated title, probably the same for notable homicides, and is not yet suitable for the main space. Ira Leviton (talk)
@Ira Leviton: What do you mean by "a hidden header"? I am open to renaming, what type of renaming would you suggest? The opening of the list already includes a scope note that it is limited to homicides "that have a Wikipedia article". With this limitation, we include only homicides that are sufficiently notable to warrant a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: Hidden header was the wrong term; I should have said something like a hidden message with explicit instructions, such as "Do not add unless there is an already an article on the English Wikipedia", "make sure to keep chronologic order", or whatever else might be required to keep the list in good order. (Even though the opening sentence says what the article is about, with the potential for many editors to add to it because there have been thousands of homicides, it's likely to need more instructions to prevent the inclusion of non-notable homicides or random arrangements.) As far as renaming, just add "notable" – List of notable homicides in California. Ira Leviton (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ira. My intention is to curate the list to ensure that it doesn't get bogged down with non-notable stuff. I am fine with all of your suggestions, including adding "notable" to the title. I will also add instructions along the lines of what you have suggested. Cbl62 (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It should be deleted because it's neither a useful article nor a wiki-suitable page. Theraza (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theraza: By this edit, you added to a link to profitablegatetocontent.com (?) but my browser warns me not to go there. I therefore reverted your addition. Can you explain what it is? Cbl62 (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nominator and closer. The article has now expanded by more than three-fold since nomination, now covering more than 200 entries and over 225 sources. I respectfully ask the nominator to reconsider whether they still believe this should actually be deleted and ask the closer to consider the improved status. Cbl62 (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is still a listcruft article that will never encompass all "homicides in California." It's partially duplicative of the categories already mentioned in the deletion nomination. It summarizes some but not all homicides in California. AldezD (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it doesn't summarize "all homicides in California." It is limited to notable homicides, and a move as suggested above by Ira Leviton to clarify this ("List of notable homicides in California") is fine with me. Given that numerous publications (including books) have been written about the topic of California homicides, the topic passes WP:NLIST and certainly doesn't fall into the realm of "listcruft". Cbl62 (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Murder in California is already tagged to appropriate articles. A separate article summarizing "notable" homicides is neither useful nor necessary. AldezD (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The category you cite does not collect all of the notable homicides in one place. Nor does it furnish the same rich array of data, including summary of the incident, date, location, and source material. It is in no way equivalent or duplicative. Your subjective opinion that the list is "cruft" is essentially an "I don't like it" assertion. The real issue is whether or not it passes WP:NLIST, which it clearly does with numerous sources discussing California homicides as a notable topic. Cbl62 (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article just passed the 100K mark, and is still probably incomplete even if it is intended to cover only notable cases. California is a big state with more people than Lagos. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is whether the list is notable, not whether it's complete. If size become an issue, it may make sense to split between Northern and Southern California, but that's an editing issue. @LaundryPizza03: Do you believe that the list is not notable under WP:NLIST?
Keep The list has far more information than the category does, so is more useful. It doesn't list every homicide, only those that have Wikipedia articles, so is a valid navigational list. DreamFocus 15:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has received 200+ edits since it was nominated. Please evaluate recent changes to the article when offering your opinion on what should happen with this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It just so happens that I have a draft, Draft:Murder in California. It could be moved into mainspace and have this list merged into it. BD2412T 05:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see either the nominator nor any "delete" !votes giving a valid reason why this list doesn't meet WP:NLIST. Sources in the article demonstrate that "murders in California" are clearly a notable topic as a group. WP:CSC supports the decision to list only those homicides that meet our notability guidelines, so the lack of non-exhaustiveness is not an issue to me. Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 00:33, 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 keep. LizRead!Talk! 06:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear why this person is notable, range of sources neither appear reliable nor offer significant coverage, the "football career". JAYFAX (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources present in article do not demonstrate notability, but searching finds The Michigan Daily, USA Today, US Weekly (despite article title, contains significant coverage of Adin), Dot Esports. – Pbrks(t • c) 23:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jayfax and Oaktree, did you even look at the talk page before making this AfD? Also, the sources Pbrks cited prove he meets WP:GNG. PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's also this lengthy article from reliable outletComplex about the subject at hand that was present in the article before, which definitely meets WP:SIGCOV. I stand by my Keep vote. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:29, 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.
Very little coverage on Robert herself before her unfortunate death. More than a few passive mentions in articles covering her son's highly publicized sexual assault in Dubai, but that doesn't help much when it comes to her notability as a journalist. Mooonswimmer 19:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep French wiki article has a source from Europe1 (among others) confirming she was given the Legion of Honor, making her notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does being the recipient of a posthumous award automatically make one notable? Even when we consider that The Legion of Honor has been awarded to nearly a million individuals since its inception in 1802, and that over 2000 individuals receive the award annually? Mooonswimmer 22:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive coverage in reliable sources in 2007 and 2017, plus the Legion of Honour - passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into any other claim of notability, but the fact that she has been made a chevalier in the Legion of Honour doesn't confer any. It's equivalent to being an MBE in the UK (which my father, who would revolve very fast in his grave if anyone came near to considering him notable, was), at least two levels below anything at all notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough press in Switzerland which covers her death. [1], [2], [3] etc. For me she is clearly notable. 🤾♂️Malo95 (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any press in Switzerland which covers Robert or her journalism, and not the fact that a European journalist was killed in Iraq? ~ Mooonswimmer 13:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient. StarMississippi 00:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted earlier this year after an AfD that attracted no participation. Then restored without improvement. The articles in other languages wikis aren’t much help in determining notability or providing sources. I’ve looked in English and Bengali and don’t see anything that looks like in depth coverage in RIS. There may of course be sources in Bengali I’ve missed, but if so it would be good for someone to add them. Mccapra (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as the last two times, zero sourcing found. Might be some in a local language, but I can't find any. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep, as no policy based argument for deletion has been offered. Sources don't have to be online or in English. It's misleading to write "zero sourcing found" in AFD when the article has citations.Jahaza (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for deletion is that notability is not demonstrated by the current sources and no others have been found. Mccapra (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
except that you give no evidence of having actually reviewed the current (offline) source.Jahaza (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven’t, but that would not be sufficient to demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you say so? It appears to be a standard biographical dictionary in Bengali. It's used as a source in dozens of Wikipedia articles. Generally, being listed in a national biographical dictionary is good evidence of notability. Jahaza (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's presumably acceptable for use. But there's a big difference between "acceptable for use as one source amid a mix of solid WP:GNG-worthy sources" and "able to singlehandedly clinch the notability of a person all by itself even if no other acceptable sources are present at all". You have to prove the latter, not the former. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although difficult to find more sources, it is clear that he is very notable as he was worth being mentioned in books like সংসদ বাঙালি চরিতাভিধান SalamAlayka (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sources does not meet GNG.Saturnrises (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody with much better access to Indian source repositories than I've got can find additional sources to bolster his notability. One acceptable source isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, one acceptable source is often enough, per WP:ANYBIO, 3. Jahaza (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in ANYBIO suggests that one source is enough. His presence in a biographical dictionary counts as a notability claim, but it still can't be an article's sole source. Bearcat (talk) 13:40, 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 delete. While on a pure nose count this would be right on the border of "no consensus", the BLP1E concerns here put this here, at least for now. This is a case where things certainly might be reconsidered after some time has passed. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 08:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not even a full professor. Google Scholar index of 7. There are multiple non-notable professors in third world countries, such as Nigeria that have higher numbers, but are not notable. Fails WP:NPROF. Most of the sources are centered around her sensationalist comment about Queen Elizabeth 2. I don't think Wikipedia was created for such. HandsomeBoy (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anya is an academic in the United States, a first world country. No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anya is a associate professor at Carnegie Melon, so statement about third world countries is irrelevant. That said, I agree that she is non-notable on Academic grounds and fails general notability (WP:BIO). Her comment about Queen Elizabeth is the only reason she has gained attention. I think a better place for this information is the Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II page, especially as there have been many reactions on social media criticizing the monarch's role in colonialism. Basically, her response is notable, not her biography. Beebotbaba (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass criteria WP:ACADEMIC. The claim to fame is a single purposefully controversial tweet. If there was substantial commentaries in various media on a longer period of time, the subject could meet criterium 7 but we are far from it. Other criteria on academic productivity (e.g. criterium 1) do not seem to pass the threshold even for a low citation field https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Vk9BjUwAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao
Keep. Actually, her GS shows she has about the same # citations as Vicky Forster (GS). For the record, I wholeheartedly agree with PROF notability guidelines, but came to realize a while back that there are numerous BLPs happily existing on WP that flagrantly violate these guidelines. Those articles actually constitute the de facto notability standard, as it actually exists in practice. I've discussed this view at length in several places, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jennifer_Thorpe-Moscon, and will not weigh-in further here. Thanks. 128.252.79.225 (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a strange argument when Vicky Forster has been tagged for notability since July. There is no consensus that Forster is notable. And that leaves aside the WP:OTHERSTUFF problem. Jahaza (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BLP1E to Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II#Social media where there is a paragraph about her comments with four sources. There are other sources that could potentially be added, e.g. CBS News Sept. 8, 2022, Independent Sept. 9, 2022, Buzzfeed News, Sept. 11, 2022, Guardian, Sept. 14, 2022. Beyond this one event, she appears to otherwise be a low-profile individual, e.g. according to the coverage from The Guardian. On the WP Library, I found citations for reviews of her book (Nicholas Cheadle. (2019). Book review: Uju Anya, Racialized Identities in Second Language Learning: Speaking Blackness in Brazil. Discourse & Society, 30, 325–327; Yi Wang. (2020). Anya, U. (2016). Racialized identities in second language learning: Speaking blackness in Brazil. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 32, 191–194; Dessein, E. (2019). Uju Anya Racialized Identities in Second Language Learning: Speaking Blackness in Brazil; London 254. System, 87). There is also brief coverage of her commentary in The Daily Beast in 2020 (via Gale), and The Australian in 2021 (via Gale) and a lot more coverage of her recent commentary. On Proquest, there is a several-graf press release profile of her education and academic career in Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (Online); "Uju Anya Wins First Book Award From the American Association for Applied Linguistics" (Mar 29, 2019) and Women in Academia Report (Mar 28, 2019). It appears to be WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article per WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR or WP:NPROF, but there seems to be potential for an article in the future as her career develops. Beccaynr (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A controversial tweet is all she is known for. Reli source (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was going to write the article myself but never got around to publishing it. People are predictably (and I have to roll my eyes at it 😒) more focused on a “mean tweet”, which 2 weeks later no one cares about, and ignoring the fact that she easily meets the criteria of notability for professors. 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. She wrote an academic book that won an award. Carnegie Mellon is not the only institution of which she has been a professor if people bothered to do a before. Trillfendi (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I noted the award above in my summary of research, but the first book award from the American Association for Applied Linguistics is not similar to the types of prestigious awards described at WP:NPROF#2, so it does not help show she clears the "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished? described in the NPROF General notes. I was hoping to find book reviews for the book she co-edited to help show support for WP:AUTHOR notability, and I would be open to changing my !vote if stronger sourcing can be found to support her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She wrote an academic book that won an award. Come on...that's obviously not sufficient for NPROF #2. JoelleJay (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that over 4,000 academics from around the country and around the world signed a open letter for Anya with the consensus that: The signees — a mix of academics and alumni from various institutions in the U.S. and beyond — say Ms. Anya is a highly accomplished scholar and a force for diversity, equity and inclusion in the field of linguistics. per Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Petition itself) is more than enough reason for me to say Keep. Trillfendi (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete, per Beccaynr's analysis. Far too soon for her to meet NPROF, so notability now would have to be achieved through GNG coverage, and that is solidly in the BLP1E arena. JoelleJay (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I will present the best keep case that I can see. The brouhaha with the tweet got a spike in coverage, but looks like a WP:BLP1E situation. The one authored book with at least a handful of reviews [4][5][6] is probably weakly notable per WP:BOOKCRIT. Together, one might make the case for a WP:BLP2E. The early career award doesn't contribute much to notability; the _coverage_ of the petition counts towards GNG notability, subject to BLP1E concerns; the citations are a respectable start towards WP:NPROF C1 in what I believe is usually a "book field", but short of what I'd look for even in a low-citation field; no other sign of WP:NPROF notability. However, that there seem to be two possible redirect targets (Reactions to death of Queen Elizabeth, and the book) gives me a little pause before a redirect !vote. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(To be be clear, I am somewhat skeptical of the case I make above, which is why I leave it as a comment only for the time being.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Uju Anya meets Wikipedia's academicy notability standard by having received "a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." Per the guidelines, that one award is enough to prove notability. But in addition to that a search on the Wikipedia library shows a number of citations, book reviews and coverage of Anya's work prior to the coverage around her comments on Queen Elizabeth. This includes coverage of her award, reviews of her work in places like Discourse & Society, and coverage of her comments on social matters in places like the Daily Beast and CNN. Anya more than satisifies Wikipedia notability guidelines for academics.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion of notability here for a "first book" award from a niche academic society is not objectively supported by corresponding national or international coverage that demonstrates it is similar to a Nobel Prize or Pulitzer Prize, per NPROF. There are press releases about her award reprinted in two journals noted above, but this is not independent coverage that helps support notability.
She also received brief sensationalized coverage for her recent comments, which was not a significant event with lasting impacts. Brief quotes previously reported in the Daily Beast, The Australian, and CNN are not substantial coverage about her nor sufficient for NPROF#7, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area - and CNN describes her as a Twitter user, not an academic. As to the three reviews that have been found, I appreciate the analysis by Russ Woodroofe above, and if there is an article for her reviewed book, would favor a redirect to that article. Beccaynr (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The American Association for Applied Linguistics is hardly a "niche academic society." Instead, it is a major linguistic organization that has been around for nearly 50 years. And per Wikipedia:Notability (academics), an award doesn't have to be a Nobel Prize or Pulitzer Prize to qualify. If that was the case we'd have very few biography articles on Wikipedia. Instead, the guidelines state the award must be a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." This award definitely qualifies as that.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SouthernNights, the book award is however an early career award (for _first_ book), which we generally not consider as contributing much to NPROF notability. Such an award is given more for promise than for impact. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's focused on American practitioners of a subfield of linguistics, that's pretty niche. Even looking only at senior-career awards, we would have many thousands more biographies if we included all winners from all academic societies, but the vast majority of these awards are clearly not the caliber of recognition NPROF or ANYBIO requires. This is even more true for early-career awards, which (with the exception of mid-career awards like the Fields Medal that have long been acknowledged as a top international honor across all math) basically by definition cannot be considered sufficiently "highly prestigious" since they automatically exclude everyone who has already made a sizable impact in a field. JoelleJay (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My read of an assertion "Per the guidelines, that one award is enough to prove notability" is per WP:NPROF#2 For the purposes of Criterion 2, major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc., always qualify under Criterion 2. Some less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige can also be used to satisfy Criterion 2, so I attempted to compare the type of award and did not ever suggest that only Nobels or Pulitzers qualify. To clarify my previous comment, this award does not appear to be similar to awards described in NPROF#2, and I could not otherwise find support for its notability, and therefore the award does not appear sufficient to support an article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This professor's contributions to her field of study are meager at best. She received attention based on her flagrant comments concerning the Queen's death and not much else. Not much going for her to create a page. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per GNG and WP:BLP2E as I have laid out above. The subject is mainly notable for the coverage of the mean tweet, which falls squarely in WP:BLP1E and 15 minutes of fame territory. She is also the author of a notable book, and the reviews of that bring me to a (very) weak keep. Redirection to Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II is sadly probably the best alternative to deletion at this time: the coverage that she got over the tweet was pretty substantial. With a second book, I expect that the subject will have a solid pass of WP:NAUTHOR (without combination with the "mean tweet" coverage). I see some limited progress towards WP:NPROF but no pass of that criteria. In particular, early career awards, such as those issues for first books, are given for promise rather than impact, and do not pass WP:NPROF C2. Her citations are unusually strong for a "book field", and she may eventually pass WP:NPROF C1 (but does not yet). But passing one notability criteria is enough for a keep. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect Very early career, non-notable as an academic. The AAAL First Book Award is interesting and if combined with a stronger academic record she may have been notable, but it a first book award, in the linguistics field, in her own field. The tweet I've not seen nor heard of, which makes the thing forgettable and i've forgotten about it already. I think with the book and the award there is big things coming but I think it too early in the day for an article. Without the tweet there wouldn't have been an article. WP:TOOSOON. scope_creepTalk 10:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While she may fail WP:NPROF, the sources cited by others above indicate she passes criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Her book has been "the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". That's all we need to establish notability under the author guideline.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUTHOR#3 says in addition to multiple reviews, the work should be significant or well-known. The reviews help support WP:NBOOK notability, but more is needed to support notability for the author. Beccaynr (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the award the book won demonstrates significance sufficiently to pass criteria 3.4meter4 (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. LizRead!Talk! 06:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be WP:OR for a neologism, connected to the human overpopulation challenges we have had over the last few years: of a very narrow set of concepts being pushed to argue for a particular political position. If we keep the concept, should be redirected to Sustainable population. Sadads (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too confusing. Not clear what optimizing for (lead contradicts overview) or whether there is an optimum (for example maximising GDP per person as mentioned in overview - it might continually increase with population due to specialization and more networking and never reach a maximum) or whether optimizing a human population is possible. I doubt this article could be fixed. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rustytrombone there isn't really anything to merge, at most its a limited mention in sustainable population, Sadads (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cant see that is heading either for a dictionary definition or a n essay.TheLongTone (talk) 14:12, 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.
Merge to Lake Ikeda. The monster sightings seem to be a major part of the lake's popularity as a tourist spot (prominently mentioned in travel guides, eg. [7], [8]), so I think there ought to be a section on Issie in the Lake Ikeda article, but I can't find sufficient evidence of notability for a stand-alone page. A lot of books on cryptozoology devote a paragraph or so to Issie (the most substantial coverage I've found is in these two sources: [9], [10]), but since this is a fringe subject, we really need sources which critically assess the myth and comment on its cultural significance, rather than those which simply repeat the claims made by monster-spotters. I'm open to changing my !vote if any Japanese speakers uncover better sources (there's a book cited in the Japanese WP article which appears to devote several pages to the subject). Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lake Ikeda. There is coverage, but much of it in cryptzoology sources and brief. It is a tourist attraction in the lake, as you can see here. Fulmard (talk) 04:58, 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.
Non-notable football club in Nigeria playing lowest division of amateur league. Poorly sourced and certainly doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Jamiebuba (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 08:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are sources available 1, 2, 3, 4 but not sure about the reliability. Fifthapril (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources mentioned above seem to justify the article existing. The team plays in a national league. Nfitz (talk) 01:15, 23 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, LizRead!Talk! 23:19, 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.
So, I'll admit that I'm not super familiar with Nigerian media, but these sources don't seem to be reliable at all. BellaNaija is already flagged as unreliable by this script. One website is literally "ghgossip.com". Some look like they are a cheap copy of Wikipedia. Nothing from these strike up to me as reliable. Fails the GNG. ~StyyxTalk? 21:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a promotional article. Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass GNG.Onel5969TT me 11:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wp:GNG, for not having enough coverage.NMasiha (talk) 15:14, 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.
As this is a for-profit, the sources need to meet the strict criteria of WP:NCORP to contribute to notability. Several sources begin with "Al Mashhad.. a platform that extends all boundaries bla bla bla", those are promotional announcements failing WP:ORGIND (requiring the content of the sources to independent i. e. "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject"), often copied from each other. This is a single sentence announcement without SIGCOV. All other sources are about the creation of the company, which, again, fail WP:ORGIND. ~StyyxTalk? 21:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article based on announcement coverage for a new start-up "which comes to light before the end year" and featuring uncited claims to notability. (The same new editing account has also created a similar Draft:Al Mashhad Channel on the same venture.) The referenced coverage fails WP:CORPDEPTH; I am not seeing evidence that this particular "Al Mashhad" venture meets WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Some off-point accusations aside, the Keep comments brought forward evidence of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, which most of the Delete comments did not engage. The one Delete commenter who did engage with the source discussion ended by withdrawing their position. RL0919 (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable crypto expert. Sources from reliable publications are just name drops without any significant coverage. Fails the GNG. ~StyyxTalk? 21:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete more crypto fluff. Is there anyone connected with crypto that isn't an expert? Agree with the name drops, sourcing is no where near GNG.Oaktree b (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OH, I'm not even going near that one. Colour of her skin isn't the issue, quality of the sources is. One world brother. One love. Oaktree b (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no one is notable in crypto, we're discussing reliable sources that mention her at length. We need sources that are unrelated to her, discussing her as a person, not as some "expert" on a subject. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't RS. The CNN link barely mentions her. We need articles about her, not just using her name. Oaktree b (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they aren't substantial coverage of her. Most are just name drops, that's the issue. We need articles about her. Not using her as a talking head on xyz subject. Oaktree b (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
again, she's a talking head, they articles aren't about her as a person. We need sources that discuss her at length, not simply mention her in passing. Show me some that do that and we can revisit. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crypto flff that fails GNG dudhhrtalkcontribs (he/they) 18:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see at minimum 3 sources that are significantly about her: OZY, Glamour (she's one of many but there are 6 paragraphs on her), and Face2FaceAfrica. There are also a couple of interviews, evidence of speaking engagements, and shorter mentions in other publications. Lamona (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glamour maybe, Ozy looks like a blog. Face2Face africa, ungh not really. A few paragraphs in a fahsion magazine is a start I guess. Long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ozy_(media_company) is not a blog, and although it also isn't the New York Times it seems legit. It appears to be a small but not disparaged media company. Ditto Face2Face_Africa. Both of those references are to full-sized articles. As periodicals, they both have staffs that function as journalists, but I couldn't find an actual editorial statement online for either. BTW, the relationship of both of these companies to their newspapers/journals is similar to the relationship the Conde Nast has with so many magazines in terms of the business end. Although the Glamour piece has her as one of many, it doesn't distract from the whole. And Glamour has done some good quality journalistic work. The name is unfortunate (dating from 1939, a very different time), but it covers a wide range of women's issues. Lamona (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They lost with with the accusation of racism. If we resort to that level in an AfD discussion, I can't take anything they say seriously. What I choose to disclose of my personal life is my business, what you choose to decide for me is an issue. Had I already not previously disclosed it, I would ask them how do they know I'm not black. If this was an actual vote, I'd keep it "delete" simply to prove a point. We're here to discuss the quality of sources. I have no further interest in discussing this. The sources below actually do help prove GNG, for what it's worth. !neutral at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the cogent source analysis by Lamona. The three sources all have editorial oversight and adress the subject directly and in detail. I'm not seeing a good argument as to why these sources should not be counted as significant independent RS evidence towards meeting GNG. Also the fact that CNN included her on a panel of crypto currency experts I think bolsters the significance/credibility of the coverage in the less well known media articles.4meter4 (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I don't think this article or subject in its current from meets the GNG. It mostly uses primary sources, only has 10,000 results on Google. The only notable person here could easily have their entries merged into their respective articles, and press coverage is limited to only around 200 results, with an even lower 21 results on Google Scholar. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is long and wordy, almost promotional, for very little sourcing. No sources found that can be used. Oaktree b (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linkedin, yelp and pinterest, then it's not much of anything after those. Oaktree b (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING- this article is just a promotion for the club. Doesn't look to be notable either, although even it it were, I believe WP:TNT would apply here, as there is no salvageable encyclopedic material in the current article. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:38, 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.
Needs to meet WP:NONPROFIT, however, it lacks significant coverage. Sources are either from the organization itself or just passing mentions. Isn't notable. ~StyyxTalk? 20:59, 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 subject does not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Delete entirely, or if necessary, blank and redirect to a section in Unicorn. TNstingray (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unicorn as suggested. --Aurictalk 23:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle(talk • contribs) 20:49, 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.
A term for an anti-porn chaperone, particularly among some American Christians, apparently. This is clearly a thing that exists, but it's not clear that it is a notable thing (WP:GNG), and there's not much more here than a WP:DICDEF. The sources cited are weak and mostly unreliable. A search found several mentions of the concept, particularly in connection to accountability software, but nothing substantial enough for an article. A redirect to accountability software would probably not help because the term seems also to be in use for things unrelated to porn avoidance, such as fitness training. Sandstein 17:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. The improvements show that it is possible to write a serious, well-sourced article about the topic. Thanks! Sandstein 16:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just doing a quick google search shows a good amount of articles which mention this. But as per the nom, it's mostly mentioned in relation to accountability software. I don't think it passes WP:GNG on its own. Agree that there's not much more than a WP:DICTIONARY. GoldMiner24Talk 18:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Expand A Google scholar search has about 3000 hits. This should be fertile ground for expanding the article with peer reviewed publications on the subject.--Nowa (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been in the same poor state since you created it in 2009. If expansion were possible, it would have been done. Calling for others to expand your article is facile; doing it is the challenging part. The Google Scholar search only shows that the topic is mentioned, not that it receives the sort of substantial coverage to meet GNG. You'd need to cite specific sources to show that. The search also indicates very different understandings of the term: an "accountability partner" is suggested as a mechanism for quality control in medicine, psychology, social work, etc. That is also an indication that there may not be a coherent topic to describe under this title. Sandstein 06:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point that there are very different understandings of the term in different fields. I've built upon 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 addition to further expand the scope of the article to include these other fields.--Nowa (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If expansion were possible, it would have been done. is an untrue statement. I wish it were true, but unfortunately Wikipedia is full of work that needs to have been done for years to decades now. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per Nowa. Plenty of sources exist and could be used to improve this article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has become a mainstream concept. See usage in the Washington Post[11], NY Times [12][13][14], Harvard Business Review[15][16][17][18], The Times of India[19]. Jahaza (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. I was just looking for information on this topic in the context of work and establishing habits as discussed at Indeed[20] and Lifehack [21]. I was very surprised to see this article marked for deletion. +1 that it has indeed become a mainstream concept. Nancl (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nanci, was there any information in particular you were looking for? Nowa (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not merely a dictionary term but, as @Jahaza correctly states, has now become a mainstream concept especially among younger Christians today.
Keep - A notable concept in Christian culture and becoming increasingly mainstream. I have tidied up the article a little, removing some poor/unreliable sources and adding in most of what Jahaza found. There's a decent amount on secular uses of the term but the specifically Christian context needs a bit more work. As a start, I found this published in Gender & Society which seems to discuss the concept in some detail - I'll have a look at that at some point soon and see if I can expand it further. WJ94 (talk) 11:58, 30 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. Article has been improved; nominator has withdrawn his nomination. More work can be done to improve the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - quite a few mentions about this populated place back in the 1920s and 1930s, such as this obit, this, this, this, this, and this. Clearly meets GEOLAND.Onel5969TT me 16:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see those articles at Newspapers.com, each says a subscription is required. I see that several are in the Arizona Republic and at least one is in the Williams News of Williams, Arizona. Others commenting below seem to be dismissing these items as mere mentions of Drake as a place, not a community. --Doncram (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing those. One is about death of the forest ranger stationed at Drake; one is about a woman who was teacher at Drake's school; others mention Drake in context where Drake could be a town or not. See my new comment below identifying Drake, aka Cedar Glade, as a town with population 70, a ranger station, a school, and more, in this edit. --Doncram (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yavapai County. This is a named railroad junction. As there is no other named place for miles around, the name was used to designate the location of anything in the general area from the cement plant to the bridge. There is no indication there is or was any kind of legally recognized community there (fails GEOLAND), and the usage that does exist is not enough for a stand-alone article that meets GNG. MB 19:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V, as we don't have a reliable source saying this is or was a populated place. A mention in a newspaper as being a place is not enough for this. Also fails WP:GEOLAND, which only gives near-automatic recognition to legally recognised populated places, and there is no evidence this is or was a legally recognised populated place. If it never was then it has to pass WP:GNG, and it clearly doesn't. Hut 8.5 15:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I went to this place in May 2008, trying to get photos of the two road bridges built in 1923 listed on the NRHP as being nearby, which involved driving south downhill, coming down into canyon along what Google maps identifies as Forest Service Rd 492 / local route 71, to a point near Drake Cement. I believe i got a very faraway shot of one of the two bridges, with no telephoto; it was not worth uploading to Commons. I believe that jeeps/4wd vehicles could go through on 71 but it didn't look good for my car (if i recall correctly), and also the NRHP documents were not available online so I didn't have good info about what I was looking for, and I had other places to go. I recall thinking it looked like it would be a long hike to get up to the far-away bridge, which might or might not be the NRHP one, as I think there is a historic railroad bridge around there too, and it was hot, so I retreated. [In fact i was close to the bridge, looking down on it, it did not look special from above; i thot that was not the NRHP-listed one. --Doncram (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)] I did upload a photo of NRHP-listed bridge at Perkinsville, 16.4 miles by road away, downstream from Drake.[reply]
The two NRHP listings identified as being near Drake are substantial evidence of it being a community. NRHP listings always name a "nearest community", which NRHP editors know is sometimes confusing because the named community might be across a county or state line (so sometimes the county or state holding the actual place ends up getting misidentified, and many years later it may no longer be the nearest community because another sprang up or because the named place declined. Often it is more appropriate now to identify the NRHP place as being in a township that now exists and includes it. It is always the case, though, that the NRHP listing did name an actual community.NRHP instructions "How to complete the National Register Registration form, gives as instructions for location (page 10):
Enter the name of the city or town where the property is located. For properties outside the boundaries of a city or town, follow the instructions for Vicinity. / VICINITY / For a property located outside the boundaries of a city or town (or where the address is restricted), mark "x" in the box, and enter the name of the nearest city or town found on the USGS map in the blank for "city or town."
In particular, Clayton B. Fraser, a meticulous person who prepared the 1987 NRHP Multiple Property Submission (MPS) document form for "Vehicular Bridges in Arizona", which was used to list the Hell Canyon Bridge and the Little Hell Canyon bridge (see the signature pages from the MPS included in each of their separate NRHP documents) and more, would know the requirements. Fraser did the prior study used for the MPS:
the Arizona Bridge Inventory, conducted by Fraserdesign in 1986-87. Undertaken for the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) with the cooperation of the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (ASHPO) and the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), this comprehensive study presents a historical inventory and evaluation of pre-1945 vehicular bridges currently in use on the state, county and city road systems of Arizona.(Fraser, in the MPS)
Fraser was responsible for providing names of nearest communities for NRHP listings of the numerous bridges in the MPS.
In the case of the Hell Canyon Bridge, the document used for NRHP listing is this document, which is actually a HABS/HAER document prepared by Clayton B. Fraser in 1987, following field visit in 1986, identified the bridge as being .5 miles southwest of Drake. The document notes that "The Hell Canyon Bridge functioned on U.S. Highway 89 until its replacement by a route realignment in 1954. It now stands abandoned, carrying intermittent local traffic." The document includes a portion of an Arizona Department of Transportation map which identifies Drake. I believe Drake was located in property owned by Drake Cement which spreads all around there, and is closed off.
Google maps shows two cemeteries which provide evidence of population: the Puntenney Cemetery and the Cedar Glade Cemetery. Findagrave, about the latter, states:
Cedar Glade Cemetery, also known as Drake Cemetery, is located on the grounds of the Drake Cement Company sandstone processing plant near Hell Canyon. Visitors must stop at the security gate for permission to enter the facility. The company is dedicated to preserving the graves and has fenced off this historic pioneer cemetery.
Accompanying 2 photos show 1) a sign identifying it as being in Drake and 2) a view of the cemetery. Maybe there are only 13 memorials photographed and included in Findagrave, but from the photo and how findagrave works (focusses on graves that clearly identify a person, not unidentifiable ones), I believe the cemetery would have many more graves. The Puntenney Cemetery's findagrave gives number of 53 memorials, with 9 percent having been photographed.
The Little Hell Canyon Bridge's NRHP document (also a HABS/HAER form prepared by Clayton b. Fraser, dated 1987, after field visit in 1986) states that it is located on "Abandoned grade of U.S. 89 over Little Hell Canyon 8 miles northwest of Drake." and calls it originally a highway bridge, now a ranch road bridge.
This is together evidence that Drake was a pioneer community. It makes sense the valley spot would have been a location for a community. It definitely would be abandoned by now, being bypassed and way down a canyon. Finally (although this cannot really count as evidence for this AFD), I seem to recall this was a community/location named by author Louis L'Amour, who spent time in the general area (drifting, working, fighting) and used places in the general area as settings for some of his western novels. I can't immediately find its mention where it would appear in one of his books' intros or epilogues, though. I see there exists a book Trailing Louis L'Amour in Arizona (By Bert Murphy) which would likely cover Drake, if in fact L'Amour did use it as one of his settings. --Doncram (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. User:MB, as an experienced NRHP editor, could you reconsider your !vote, given this? --Doncram (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for Cedar Glade, I found this which describes an actual town that was renamed Drake in 1920. I'll do some more searching to see if there is significant coverage but it seems that there was more here than I thought. –dlthewave☎ 03:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"One of the abandoned buildings in the Drake area", in 2006
Comment: [Edit conflict with Dlthewave finding same source.] Drake did develop from a railway workcamp, which was there for construction of high "Big Hell Canyon Railroad Bridge" on very high trestles in 1900 or 1901, and it was known as Cedar Glade until 1920 when it was renamed to Drake. It had a ranger station, a school, apparently a brothel, and population of 70. The grave memorials in Cedar Glade Cemetery, as well as those in Puntenney Cemetery across Hell Canyon/Limestone Canyon (actually i am not sure if the two canyon names are for one canyon holding two names in this section, or if Limestone Canyon is a side canyon to much longer Hell Canyon), include numerous infant deaths. The cliffs on both sides of canyon are limestone; lime kilns were first on the Puntenney side and it developed as a town earlier, and had a post office from January 12, 1905 to September 30, 1932. This from "A Tale of Two Towns: Cedar Glade (Drake) and Puntenney, Arizona", by Kathy Block, historian of American Pioneer & Cemetery Research Project (internet version of November 18, 2011), which also includes:
"By 1909 the post office also served Cedar Glade, with a population of 70 people. The postmaster compensation for the year was $24.41 in 1905 and $120 in 1909. Cedar Glade was named for the junipers, commonly called “cedar” in those times."
"George Puntenney, when he established Puntenney, built a one room schoolhouse for the area's children. As Cedar Glade across Hell Canyon developed, the children living there had to cross on a railroad trestle until the schoolhouse was moved across the canyon. Finally, a schoolhouse for Cedar Glade was built in 1928. The 1920 Census listed Barnetta Ball, age 39, as “Teacher Public School.” [vs. Elizabeth Stroud is the teacher mentioned in 30 Jan 1922 Arizona Republic article linked above.]
Freda Schwanbeck Davis was a "student at the school in Puntenney (which had a peak population of about 2,500.)" Her early memories of Cedar Glade were covered in a 1981 Prescott Courier article.
"In 1912 Cedar Glade also became the junction for the Verde Valley Railroad, which accessed a copper smelter in Clarkdale. .... Approximately 20 structures had been built there by the railroad, including a depot, agent's house, water tank, a number of section houses, bunkhouse, and freight warehouses. The railroad kept a small staff in Drake thru the 1950s."
I expect searching on Cedar Glade will yield more sources. Also a ADMMR mining collection file: Cedar Glade Quarries is about quarries there. Wikipedia does not have an article on the larger town of Puntenney, Arizona; offhand I wouldn't mind if the two towns were covered in one article because their histories are linked. this about Puntenney as a ghosttown has some info about Cedar Glade, and that the bridge between is blocked by the cement plant. But the result of AFD should be "Keep", either way. --Doncram (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:22, 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.
"Clear WP:SPORTCRIT fail as per WP:BEFORE source check." - my PROD rationale stands. But since certain users seem intent on continuing to disrupt the sports stub BLP cleanup effort whenever they can, we must go through this ritual. Sorry for the waste of time, but then again, I'm not the one who should apologize. Dr. Duh🩺 (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Best I was able to find are[28][29][30], which are far from enough. (Great hair though.) Jahaza (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG - I also found only passing mentions and trivial in online German-language coverage. Jogurney (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant coverage. Ovinus (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge is it ok if I merge it to the main article, because the main article is also not really big.🤾♂️Malo95 (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Malo95, please do not merge unless the closure of this discussion indicates a merger. You can improve the article but please do not move or merge it. Doing this prevents other participants from evaluating the article and offering their opinions and also can complicate the discussion closure. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —ScottyWong— 16:53, 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.
Article about former footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. PROD contested without any showing of potential SIGCOV. All of the online English and Spanish language coverage available is routine and/or trivial. Jogurney (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Jogurney and Spiderone. Not finding any in-depth coverage. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No evidence of notability. Prod removed because there are other similar lists, which doesn't address the actual issue of course (but may indicate that some of these other lists need looking at as well). Sourced to commercial DVD seller sites, and looking for something better for at random season 13 gives nothing useful. Fram (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Grey's Anatomy's main article. This list is better than the one that is in the main article, but by no means does it need to be on it's own. DonaldD23talk to me 16:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the DVD section of Grey's Anatomy, about as unambiguous a merge candidate as there is. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already in Grey's Anatomy#Home media releases, and unlikely as show was never released on VHS and has only released season-by-season on DVD, so "home video" is an antiquated term in this instance. Nate•(chatter) 17:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For many years there was a § Home media section describing the DVDs. 120.154.210.154 drove by and added the table of DVD releases on 22 October 2019. As this table has survived for nearly three years, there seems to be a consensus for keeping it, so it makes sense to merge the content of the older table into this "table fork". This table should only be kept in one place, for ease of maintenance. I hadn't noticed the newer table before it was pointed out above in this discussion. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. It's not Wikipedia's job to be a repository of links for readers to know about every home media edition available for purchase. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 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.
Reception is WP:REFBOMB but has nothing particularly about the character Megumin as compared to just trivial mentions in other material about the series itself, or fan votes (WP:USERG). The article in general fails WP:GNG and has nothing that could not simply be contained within the character list for the series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCrunchyroll and Comicbook.com seem to think that the character is significant enough that they can talk about a Megumin-centric spinoff series without bothering to explain who Megumin is. Obviously, if this isn't going to be standalone (and at 2 days of existence, I think an AfD is probably premature) it will need to be at least a redirect somewhere. Jclemens (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first source cited there is WP:PRIMARY as it clearly states Source: Press Release. In any event, with the anime not even released yet, this is clearly WP:TOOSOON. She may be notable if the anime gets a ton of coverage, but that is not the case currently. (I should note that there is no such thing as a "premature" AfD if the content is clearly not sourced properly. AfC exists for a reason, of course). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Premature in meaning that if an editor has just broken out a new article, it's appropriate to query if more sources are forthcoming or just AGF that further improvement might be forthcoming before sending a new article to AfD. Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it was intended to be a work in progress, that's what drafts are for. People can see and edit them. But mainspace articles are expected to be notable from Day 1. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You meant, "demonstrate notability from day 1" I trust, per WP:NEXIST. I don't disagree, but note that we're dealing with busy volunteers executing things imperfectly; I tend to favor a week's grace period and a talk page notice on the creator's talk page as a best practice, but I understand that that is not universally agreed upon, let alone written down anywhere as an expectation. Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found more articles centered around her and added around her. I don't know if I can't add more content though.Tintor2 (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VG, at least, has come to the conclusion that CBR sources are not indicative of standalone notability, despite being usable for content purposes. They are content mill articles and gazillions exist for many pop culture characters.
Found more sources about gng and the spinoff where is the protagonist. Not sure if it's better now.
Keep Found several sources in terms of characterization and reception. Even then, the existing secondary sources and nominations the character received in popularity and being the main star of the spin-off doesn't violate WP:GNG in my opinion. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Not sure why you pinged me twice but here's some sources for characterization: 1, 2, 3. I'd do the reception part but since the time I've posted my initial comment and this reply, people have already used some of the sources I was going to use so it'd be superfluous to link them here again. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperSkaterDude45 I am afraid those won't help here at all, they are about the upcoming spin off, and provide just the boilerplate plot summary related to the character. If these are the best sources we have, then there is nothing to save here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Unfortunately, the only summaries I could find are from social media such as Reddit or Twitter as the Light Novel series in general doesn't get nearly as much coverage compared to the anime. The best I can do is provide the ISBN's of the English spinoff novels (ISBN978-1-97-535764-1, ISBN978-1-97-530597-0, ISBN978-1-97-530600-7, ISBN978-1-97-530603-8 and ISBN978-1-97-530606-9). Now what I could do is similar to what other anime character articles do is that I can write my own summary of the spinoffs using the Cite LN template as reference. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep eh I'd say the sourcing currently present in the article is enough for it to scrape past GNG. Satellizer el Bridget(Talk) 13:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough reliable sources are talking about this character, and now also her upcoming spin-off. DreamFocus 08:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List_of_KonoSuba_characters#Megumin. She is a popular character in the fandom, but I am seeing little sourcing that would meet WP:SIGCOV. Ping me if you think I missed something and I'll take a look. I did look at the sourcing present, and it's a ton of mentions in passing and trivia like winning a minor popularity ranking or placing in the n-th position or such. Nothing in scholarly sources. Hence, the reception is a great summary of what fans think about her, in passing. Sorry, but that's not enough to warrant this being kept as a stand-alone article. Maybe one day we will get some sources that meet SIGCOV, but that doesn't appear to be the case yet. -=Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Piotrus. Most of these sources are not reliable. Even more reliable sources, like Gamespot, are covering the story itself. These are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs of the character, at best. I'm willing to grant that somewhere in the padded reference section there might be something worth WP:PRESERVING, but only after removing some of the questionable sources, and removing the parts that aren't really about the character. Shooterwalker (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Not really a "speedy" deletion as this is being closed after a week long AFD, but WP:CSD#G5 does apply here, and that also precludes sending this to draft space. The article was previously a redirect to the Winter Olympics, but that article doesn't mention the 2034 games. In any case, an article is expected here in due course as the event draws closer, but consensus is that it is too soon for an article for the time being. Sjakkalle(Check!) 08:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Currently not fit for mainspace through WP:CRYSTAL as none of the locations (only 2) have been announced as official candidates. A previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bids for the 2034 Winter Olympics) established notability, which is why this AfD is being used to draftify the article. A previous user attempted to draftify without discussion, which was reverted by another user. Originally, this article was a redirect, which was removed and changed into this speculation article by a now blocked WP:SOCK. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. More than likely there will be a 2034 Winter Olympics, but there is not much to say about it now. BD2412T 15:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you say that, then there should not have been an issue with the original draftification since the page creator (not redirect creator, but person who removed the redirect to create this speculation article). So if this is kept based on procedural grounds, I will be draftifying it based on procedural grounds of disruptive editing by a blocked WP:SOCK. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, struck bolded !vote to evaluate the sock. That said, I think we should be less focused on the formalities here. Multiple editors have edited the page, a discussion was closed as "keep," past precedent is that this is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, and a page will be created in the near future as RS coverage will cover other cities mulling bids or speculation after the 2030 Olympics are awarded. --Enos733 (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, where does it say that all articles created by socks must necessarily be deleted? It seems unfair to other editors who added content, such as User:HiltonCaliforniahere. StAnselm (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From past comments from admins, it is obvious that SOCK/tban/block evasion edits are disruptive to Wikipedia. While it doesn’t mean all have to be deleted, they should be considered disruptive to begin with, then determine if they really do improve or hurt the article. Also, this isn’t meaning to delete the article, but rather draftify it. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HiltonCalifornia has today been blocked as a sock of the same user. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! As I suspected, they were the same sock that tried to start this article in the first place. So to answer that quick question/comment, no, the disruptive edits from HiltonCalifornia should not be a reason to keep the article. lol. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At that point, why not just WP: G5 the article, as has been suggested below? 98.113.8.17 (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because the references are perfectly good, and it just means having the hassle of asking the deleting admin for a refund. StAnselm (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Yep. The main problem for me was the article contained (now removed) speculation material and that it was created by a disruptive and well-known sock. Per the guidelines, it is generally best to draftify an article older than 90 days through an AfD, which is all this is. This is basically just a whether or not this should be in mainspace at the present moment, not a “delete or keep”. Basically, this use to be a redirect, then created by a sock through disruptive editing. Will this be a page in the future, easily and a super amazing one. But in 2022, there is just speculation information about it (plus creation by a disruptive sock). So yeah, this discussion is just a draftification discussion, not really an “AfD”. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft This is far too soon to have an article for, as even the 2030 Games have not yet been awarded yet. This page will be appropriate after that, consistent with having one unawarded Games article at a time. I don't think there is significant coverage about these games themselves or the bids that will be made. It is only speculative that Girona and Salt Lake City may bid if they do not get 2030, merely stating the year in the sources rather than specifics about the 2034 Games and legitimate bids. Reywas92Talk 17:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think the article as it stands is speculative at all. Salt Lake City is, now, currently, exploring a 2034 bid. StAnselm (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Salt Lake City is currently actively bidding for the 2030 Winter Olympics. While they are exploring bidding for 2034 as an alternative to 2030 if they are not awarded it, I do not see this as the basis for an article at this point, just to make this point. Reywas92Talk 18:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point is (made in the last deletion discussion) is that the 2034 games is already in the news, and receiving significant coverage in reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is it crystal-balling to say that there will be a 2034 Winter Olympics. That was never what the policy meant. Of course, we do have to draw the line somewhere - we're not going to have a 2134 Winter Olympics article - but the established consensus from the last AfD discussion is that it is not too soon. This nomination is borderline disruptive, to be honest. StAnselm (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is what WP:CRYSTAL actually says: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred... Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." All these things clearly apply to this article. StAnselm (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I don’t think this article belongs in main space at the moment, I fear if it is draftified, it will be deleted per WP:G13. I’m split between draftification and outright deletion, as it shouldn’t be that hard to build up. 173.68.184.70 (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G5, article content was written by Cabin134 and HiltonCalifornia, two sockpuppets of the same blocked account. Only other contribution was an IP adding Sweden, which was later removed as speculative. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider keeping the page up as there is discussion about the 2034 edition now. A few months ago I would have said no to this, but things have changed since. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IndustryPlantCooper, things have changed indeed. A sock editor was determined to create and make this article, which should not have been made yet. Also, this AfD is not meant to be a “Keep vs Delete” situation, but rather a “Keep in mainspace vs Keep in draftspace” situation. The main issue is the mainspace edition was created by a sock editor on two accounts, meaning it was created and mostly improved by a disruptive editor. It is better to push this into draftspace, let other non-disruptive editors improve it, then move it back in the future. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Return this article to its original Redirect status. I don't think Delete is a good solution when the original redirect was fine and a move to Draft space will either result in a) deletion in six months because no editor will spend time working on this article so distant from the event or b) a premature return back to main space which will result in AFD #2 for this article. Let it return to being a redirect to Winter Olympic Games. LizRead!Talk! 21:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G5. No objection to recreation of a redirect after the article history is completely deleted. No reason to keep a sock's creation in the editing history.4meter4 (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:NALBUM. Has been repeatedly redirected to Sponge (band)#Studio albums, and repeatedly restored by the article creator, so bringing this to AfD to establish a consensus. The band were briefly famous in the mid-1990s, but to be honest, all of their albums in the 21st century are of dubious notability and could be redirected or merged, and this one even more so – no reviews in reliable sources anywhere as far as I can tell, and no charting anywhere in the world. Current sources are one sentence from the band's AllMusic biography that says "the album was released"; a Spanish collective music blog which says nothing about the credentials of the contributors, but the writer of this particular article is a secondary school teacher; and the personal blog of a writer. The only source which could remotely be considered worthwhile is the Icon vs. Icon source, which hasn't been established to be an RS, and is not a review of the album, but more an advertisement for its forthcoming release, complete with link to the video of the lead single. There are no RSes to determine that this album is notable beyond being released. Richard3120 (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just added two additional references to the article. T Yorke (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: T Yorke (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
One of which appears to be an Italian blog, the other is a WP:PRIMARY interview with the band's singer, neither of them have any indication of professional journalism or editorial control, and neither appear to be RS. Richard3120 (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sponge (band)#Studio albums. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. Rock The Best Music and Icon vs. Icon are reliable and in-depth enough, but not enough for an album to warrant an article. SBKSPP (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how Rock the Music is reliable when it is quite obviously a blog, but still. Richard3120 (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There was no significant coverage of this project. It fails basic notability guidelines. While having a noble goal, the project fizzled. There are no significant Wikipedia links to the article, most links are from aggregation templates such as {{AMD}}. --Bejnar (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, I find no sources about the project. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a project that AMD introduced that never went anywhere and disappeared off the face of the earth. I can't find any sources on it, fails GNG. GoldMiner24Talk 17:48, 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.
Article about former footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Towards the end of his footballing career, Ortiz was the subject of an article covering his hairdressing business ([31]). This single article isn't enough to satisfy the GNG, and the only other online English and Spanish-language coverage is routine/trivial. Jogurney (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article establishes noteability, and he had a not-short career in Paraguay with plenty of secondary coverage, mentioned probably a hundred plus times here for example.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All I am seeing there is passing mentions in match reports. Could you please highlight one or two instances of significant coverage? Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Ortizesp and recent expansion. There are sources like [32] among many many other sources. Played 50+ games in fully pro Paraguay and Chile top flights in a fully pro career lasting over 10 years. In addition, having played in 2000s and early 2010s, there is deifneitly offline coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but we need more than assertions of other sources, and vague waves at search results and imaginary offline coverage. This is a player from the internet age, so if sources exist anywhere, there will be some online. I'm not seeing evidence that significant coverage exists, beyond one human interest piece about a footballers diversion into hairdressing – unfortunately, given the nature of this article, this cannot be used as an indicator that more sources exist. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only good piece of significant coverage I can see is the one identified and acknowledged by the nominator. Got some sources that demonstrate notability? Happy to take a look and reconsider if so. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's an automated reading of the entire page (as it originally existed) with headlines, weather, etc. Once you get to about the last minute, the article is read (nothing new at all compared to the text). Jogurney (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant coverage beyond this hairdressing stuff. Ovinus (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG/BASIC due to lack of significant coverage. Lots of mentions, but all but one source are just passing mentions in sports reporting or database entries. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the only reason we have an article on someone in the first place is because they played a sport professionally, but the only nontrivial coverage of them is in a completely different mundane context and doesn't meet GNG, then further GNG-meeting coverage of the subject should not be presumed. JoelleJay (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. The Extra article is good, but not enough on its own. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:06, 30 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 13:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891TalkWork 13:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with the note that there may be a notable topic in the Mithun Chakraborty-T L V Prasad collaboration films as a set rather than all of them being individually notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:52, 30 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 14:57, 3 October 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 13:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891TalkWork 13:49, 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.
Normally our "timelines" work as a chronological link to articles dealing with the subjects of the timeline. This though is a list of primary sources, a rather specialized bibliography, and isn't a notable subject on its own nor a navigational tool to articles about the individual entries. Fails WP:N and WP:NOT. Fram (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also the deletion sorting is inappropriate as it does not include the main WikiProject, which is WikiProject Science. It also fits WP:NOT, especially WP:NOTPAPER. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an arbitrary personal collection of primary sources, per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Utterly fails to indicate how 'significant events' are defined, or even why we need a 'timeline' covering such an amorphous topic as 'governance and policy studies'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
fails to indicate how 'significant events' are defined This is false. That's currently on the talk page and will get moved in a shorter form to the lead. It's not an amorphous topic and a topic more significant than e.g. paleontology. It's not an "arbitrary personal collection" either. Like the many other timelines like it, it perfectly meets WP:NOTWEBHOST. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk page discussions are not reliable sources, and the talk page discussion you link (which consists mostly of your own walls of text), accordingly cannot be cited as evidence for the notability of the supposed subject, the extent of the supposed subject, or even its existence as more than a string of words typed at a keyboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know this isn't what I meant, I referred to the quoted fails to indicate how 'significant events' are defined.
Notability is via altmetrics numbers, WP:RS coverage and citations, and criteria. Again, it perfectly meets the policies, there currently is no problem there, and there are many many timelines just like it. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion criteria like "The finding has to have at least one news report by a reputable/reliable source."? Doesn't seem to be adhered to at all in this timeline, which seems indeed to be a random, personal choice of what to include. Fram (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That may be how it seems to you after a very quick glance over it, but it's false nevertheless.
In terms of the criteria of requiring an (additional) WP:RS, yes in that case the few items with high altmetrics & citation scores (which basically/nearly all items there have) but only one ref could be removed via this criteria (if you consider this to be a large problem). I would recommend tagging them instead and it's not relevant to deletion, as the solution there would be to remove these rather than the entire article. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim (or provide RS citations). Newspapers and other RS frequently mention or discuss current research. I think it is possible (and compliant with existing policies) to create a timeline of the development of research on the topic. That said, each of the timeline entries should be discussed in RS. --Enos733 (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not WP:INDISCRIMINATE? What's the connection between an entry like "A professor for digital media technology clarifies that "Twitter was not designed or intended to be a digital town square", which she suggests is a misconception, but is a "space for millions of town criers, but not a town square for people to come together and debate"" and "Datasets about U.S. military interventions (1776–2019), organized violence (1989–2019), and conflict events worldwide (since 1468BC) are released." Fram (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in your update[33] actually helps, it simply includes some terms not present in the actual, well, not a study or research at all but a kind of blog post by "an assistant professor of digital media technology in the department of journalism and creative media" but which you added to give it an impression of being related to whatever the list topic is. Fram (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have no indication of what 'the topic' even is. 'Governance and policy studies' isn't a field of research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Governance studies and policy studies are. Simply do read the lead. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the WP:OSE pages above are are on narrower topics (Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event) or are limited to more historically significant events (Timeline of paleontology). This page is just an indiscrimate collection of publications about a fairly broad topic from the impact on military drones to a review of health-related randomized trials. There are whole journals about health policy, about energy policy, etc. and even only including those that received mainstream media coverage this list would balloon into something entirely unmanageable and useless for how broad it is or can be. The lead's "significant events" criterion is not borne out by mundane inclusions of articles about Chinese port expansion and trust-building and I'm not sure how it would be improved. These journal articles would be great in respective topic articles but I don't see how combining them here is helpful or feasibly encyclopedic. Reywas92Talk 17:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike psychology, which is (relatively) narrow in a disciplinary sense, "governance and policy" by comparison is big enough for the proverbial mack truck (and more) since it is informed by *every* discipline. Despite discussion here, the notion presented for inclusion remains WP:INDISCRIMINATE (there's no reason I could not populate this with literally hundreds of items in Japanese, Spanish, German, French, Korean, Russian etc). The article fails WP:NLIST since there is no reliable source discussion of the group. It's original research, since it appears to be self-selected. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all afaik I'm allowed to reply here per WP:DPAFD. I try to keep my replies at a minimum, and they are not "vacuous" replies but address specific points raised once as I find them to be wrong (misconceptions) that I'd like to clarify which is allowed. This is not to convince you but to at least address these specific points for others even if my 6 replies is > 5 and 4 of other commentators here. Per WP:BLUD I'm not making the same argument over and over and Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed. (it is needed due to misconceptions).
The pages above are not narrower topics, psychology or paleontology are not a narrower topics and there are even broader ones such as List of years in science.
Removed some content to remove peace & conflict studies (incl items that aren't about particular policies) now to address Reywas' point.
It's not an indiscriminate collection – see the in/exclusion criteria.
even only including those that received mainstream media coverage this list would balloon into something entirely unmanageable and useless for how broad it is or can be is false for two reasons:
there are very items that meet the criteria and received mainstream media coverage (e.g. most studies are about U.S. policy only or didn't get picked up by WP:RS; note that I did check all the health policy journals that have a WP article to make sure even though this page doesn't claim to include all significant events/studies). These 2 criteria already exclude most items.
and even if that wasn't the case the page wouldn't balloon unmanageably just like all the other broad timelines as items can be removed by others and discussed on the talk page and requires people to add them. Again, this already works in many other timeline articles.
the timeline chronicles major events in human scientific history; we shouldn't put an irresponsible unwarranted blind eye on policy studies in specific while extensively covering paleontology and various other fields.
-----
See point #1 above. Also studies by which studies within policy & governance studies are informed by are not included, only studies within those fields about policies.
there's no reason I could not populate this with literally hundreds of items is false for the two reasons of #3 above.
Policy studies and studies about policies internationally are notable. Note that it's not called more narrowly Timeline of policy studies 2020–present as there are actually very few items to include and these fields are overlap / partly synonymous. RS that discuss these fields together include [34][35][36][37]
All content on Wikipedia is selected by the editors in that sense as the article contents are not based on some other encyclopedia or alike, this is not WP:OR and no part of that policy is not met.
Sorry for the long reply, collapse it if needed, quite likely it's my last reply here. I didn't make the same comment multiple times and tried to make my case clearly and let other users decide for themselves which can sometimes require addressing specific points, especially if they are in my view misconceptions that need clarifications. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, this list is utterly bloated with scientific studies that share nothing in common plucked from every field that even vaguely relates to the social sciences. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NLIST. This article is very different from something like Timeline of paleontology or Timeline of psychology, which are predominantly chronologies of historical events, theories, and persons, most of them independently notable. This article, in contrast, is a collection of recent research, the historical significance of which is not yet known. Arguably some of the most recent entries in Timeline of psychology are in a similar position, but those are a questionable portion of a larger article whose overall topic is well-defined and clearly notable. This article is only the questionable part of a much less well-defined subject area. --RL0919 (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA, being a false internet rumour/viral phenomena. Received a couple of mentions in news sources but nothing concrete other than characterisation as a false rumour. JackWilfred (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. This is far too undeveloped to be a mainspace article, and it is not clear that it ever can be, but there is enough reasonably high-level real world reporting on the rumor to sustain a draftspace effort. BD2412T 16:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Gossip Girl, and there will be a better title and body for this when we get actual sources. Nate•(chatter) 17:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wikipedia is absolutely not an outlet for news and this is just reporting on rumour which didn't even materialise. Reject the idea of draftification as no indication this will become a historic notable topic. Can revisit if the situation changes but none of us can accurately predict if something may happen. Bungle(talk • contribs) 18:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misinformation about major politicians happens all the time. In the US, we're still dealing with lies about the January 6 attack, like this claim by Arizona state representative Mark Finchem. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails all elements of WP:EVENTCRIT. Concur, should not be draftified. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much of this information can be condensed into a different article, if it even deserves to be there at all. Bungle put it best: Wikipedia isn't news.
Delete - This pseudo-article has no properly formatted references, and so fails not only notability but verifiability. There isn't enough potential information to warrant moving to draft space. Also, the title is misleading; if this were verifiable, it would be about 2022 China coup rumors or 2022 China coup attempt. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 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.
Redirect to Mob Rules (album). I agree completely with the nominator. Mid-level chart action as a single is not significant enough for a separate article here, and the list of cover versions can be set aside as fan trivia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, seems like a good idea. Song didn't "hit" the same level the album did. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree, as well as to note that while there are no published sources for the UK chart - it fails WP:NSONG. HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Ovinus (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with this I sourced most of everything in this article and I really love this one article it’s about my favorite song and I’ll source whatever needs to be sourced just for it to say. Ytzesza (talk) 6:00 28 September 2022 (CST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:5080:2E0:488B:9867:60C:AAF3 (talk)
I would suggest looking into WP:NOTRSMUSIC. Discogs itself isn't a reliable source as it is user-generated. AllMusic is reliable as long as the sidebar isn't used, but it isn't enough to support the article, which remains undersourced. It would need more in-depth sources that can be verified. On the other hand, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:VERIFY. HorrorLover555 (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mob Rules (album). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. Being featured in Heavy Metal soundtrack doesn't make it notable either. SBKSPP (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welp how do I make it notable? ytzesza (talk) 06:13 October 3, 2022 (CST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 13:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are only THREE results which come up for a Google News search of the band, and two don't seem to relate to the band at all. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Band clearly fails WP:BAND with only a small number of Google search results, none of which establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing for the article about this genealogist and novelist is poor, and WP:BEFORE did not find me anything to add. References are mostly primary sources, apart from a deadlink to an article in the Herald, and article has been tagged as relying too much on primary sources since 2018. Tacyarg (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ref bombs, not much of anything found for sourcing. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Little in the way of independent sourcing. His personal website indicates he has edited three volumes of Retours of Heirs, which might contribute to notability, but is not enough on its own. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might he qualify under academic notability? What has been the impact of his work? Ian G. Macdonald in his 2018 book Referencing for Genealogists: Sources and Citation seems to give him some credit for influencing the field. He was the Honorary Editor of the journal The Irish Genealogist for six years, ending 2013. noted here. He regularly is asked to peer-review genealogy articles for the journal Genealogy. --Bejnar (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He seems to be highly regarded in his field: 1, 2. I wonder if reviews of any of his works can be found? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found only minor info, like a short review of one book [38], a longer book review in the Daily Record, a Daily Record newspaper article about him helping a crime writer dig up genealogical info. The journal which he is stated to have founded (but no source backs this up) is one of the many hundreds of MDPI journals, of which some have been questioned for quality. Of the links in the article, most do not support the statements in the page, and I removed most of them but eventually gave up. I found nothing to support the BIO information that was inappropriately referenced. I also removed links to his web site (as references) since that is mainly a sales page. Few of his books can be found in libraries in OCLC, although I did find some in the British Library. Note that the UK has a copyright deposit requirement so this doesn't indicate that the library showed an interest in purchasing the books. Lamona (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one appears to be an easy call. Poor sourcing and very dubious notability. Does not appear to meet the notability requirements for meriting a WP article. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:42, 30 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.
Little to no coverage from reliable sources found. There are only blogs entries, and the award seems to be discontinued. 0xDeadbeef 09:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's arguments. Surprisingly, I can't find anything more authoritative about the awards than the occasional blog. Looks like the article was created by a couple of single-issue editors at the same time as the awards were launched. Sionk (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I couldn't find a single RS via WikiLibrary database; and 3 non-RS brief mentions in Australian newspapers via Newsbank. Fails WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. LizRead!Talk! 06:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not satisfy WP:GNG. The notion of people with aristocratic titles being automatically notable is aired at other deletion discussions on the same subject which have resulted in deletion. In previous discussions, it has been noted that inclusion in a Who's Who type publication is relevant but not sufficient to satisfy the WP:Notability criteria. Some aristrocrats are notable for reasons related to their aristocratic status (e.g King Charles 3 of England) but the overwhelming majority are not. Others are notable for reasons unrelated to their nobility (e.g. The First Duke of Wellington). The subject of this article does not satisfy the notability criteria either way. In the first instance because the distance from the English (and other countries') throne is very great (and getting greater); the second instance seems self-evident. Emmentalist (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: News coverage here, here, here, and here (sources already in the article, but the nominator doesn't mention them). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for this, @Ficacia. As you've mentioned the nominator (me), I hope it's helpful to you and others if I provide additional information here. The nomination is as succinct as possible and presumes readers/editors will infer from the content to other WP policies. Specifically, references within media of good WP standing are relevant but not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. The media content must introduce material which satisfies WP:GNG in respect of the subject of the article, and this should be referred to in the article itself. The references at the article do not do this. Rather, they do the opposite by referring only to minor social and genealogical matters (see 'genealogy' at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC) (Courtesy pinging User:Ficaia) Ovinus (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree with the nominator that just having a fancy title shouldn't make you notable Lady Kingston does have sufficient coverage to establish notability. Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝) 12:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable: Wikipedia Library returns 69 hits for "Lady Gabriella Kingston" and 2097 for "Lady Gabriella Windsor". Even in the last week she got plenty of coverage for appearing to faint at the Queen's funeral Piecesofuk (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, all. I think I've managed to create near-unanimity here! My hands are up. I am retiring to a corner of my great hall with a fine bottle of port to think about what I've done. I guess the principle is that if there's enough coverage in decent media outlets, that's enough to satisfy WP:GNG even if the coverage is about trivial details. :-) All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above she does have enough media coverage. NMasiha (talk) 17:46, 30 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.
Delete no book reviews found other than on various seller sites, no coverage of the author in media sources. Even limiting it to .ca sites, not much of anything turns up. Industry Canada site (I suppose she's gotten a grant from the gov't of Canada), no coverage otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Six of the 11 footnotes here are of the "book circularly referenced to itself" variety, which is not support for notability — you don't make a writer notable by citing her books to themselves as verification that they exist, you make a writer notable by citing her books to reliable source coverage about them as verification that they got independent attention from real media. But none of the other five non-circular footnotes are proper support for notability either, comprising user-generated directories like GoodReads and blogs rather than WP:GNG-worthy media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 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 redirect to Joan Francés Blanc. I'm closing this as a redirect to the author even thought that article is also the subject of an AFD. It still seems like the best solution here and ATD. LizRead!Talk! 06:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Current refs are obviously inadequate, ref 1 is a WordPress blog (non-reliable), whereas refs 2, 3, and 4 are all different versions of this book (non-independent). The original version translated is no better, WP:BEFORE search finds no refs that could be RS and SIGCOV; I will note there are lots of books of similar names but by different authors; see 1, 2, 3, but they obviously aren't the same with this book, which seems to be non-notable. Though, it's mentioned in Joan Francés Blanc, though these refs are books that seem to trivially list this book on one page, so IMHO, a redirect there would be the best idea. Update: IMHO redirecting/merging would be a great option still. I'm assuming that the Le Setmana ref is this, which might be reliable (ref 2), though I'm unsure. But, the author also wrote this very positive piece. The ref from Avui seems to be definitely RS that is SIGCOV, but the notability is still iffy. VickKiang 11:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding some references to articles. Best regards. --— J. F. B. (me´n parlar) 09:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Joan Francés Blanc or Delete. No improvements to the article, no evidence of how this meets NBOOK/GNG. At best, redirect to the article about the author, but I am concerned about the sources, which don't lend themselves to easy verification. I am worried about possible hoaxes/OR here.
And the author of that article? WP:COI looms... Leaning towards redirect or delete then, as this a low quality promotional article about one's own work. Not cool. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You see, @Piotrus:, this was not written for promotion. Just to add a bit of knowledge.
Hello Articles for deletion, Jfblanc has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Redirect to Joan Francés Blanc or Delete. It's really not a question of if this article should be kept but more should it be redirected, deleted, or merged. I tried to find other sources to help fix this article and I wasn't able to find anything useful. Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝) 12:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Dr vulpes:@Piotrus: The article for the author is already AfDed, so if it is kept, maybe a redirect is suitable, but otherwise a delete is better. The author has written about websites that reviewed his books, see here. This leads me to doubt that the quality of ref 2 and ref 3, and leads to me concurring with Piotrus that this article is probably self-promotional. VickKiang 21:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you raise a really good point and I agree that your plan is the best direction forward. Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝) 21:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, redirect if this is closed and the other one is not deleted yet, delete if the other one ges deleted first. And yes, there may be a walled garden / COI problem here (as in, reviews may not be intependent but by collegues from the same very small academic field, exchanging favors). I am not sure what sources cited in the article are reviews, but if they are identified, we need to discuss whether they are reliable academic or otherwise outlets. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:36, 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.
Non-notable personality, writing editorials is not the same as being notable for GNG purposes, can't find any articles discussion the person themselves as an individual. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks notable and signficant coverage can found [1], [2], [3], [[39]]. He is not just a journalist but also author of books. Fifthapril (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A handful of sources about books doesn't confer notability to an author of them. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Le Grand is a notable Australian journalist. I agree the page is scant but that's a reason to improve the page, not delete it. I've added several RS and plan to expand further, but these amendments should be sufficient to justify keeping the page. Cabrils (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cabrils and Jarrahtree. Deus et lex (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete It's not clear exactly what this article is about. Seems to be a subset of Learning styles. Poorly written and a bit like a dictionary entry, as per nom, likely a candidate for WP:TNT. GoldMiner24Talk 08:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with "GoldMiner24" that the purpose of the article is unclear and is written poorly. Fifthapril (talk) 09:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm having a real hard time following this article and matching up the referances with the text. Prefer delete or redirect to learning styles. Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝) 11:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not sure what message this article carries. WP:TNT. NMasiha (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been removed from all other wikis. It is interesting how such a non-encyclopedic organization can remain in the English Wikipedia. Atakhanli (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see some participation by editors who frequent AFD discussions. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:31, 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.
Does not meet the requirements of WP:NCREATIVE or WP:GNG. Directed only one film so far, which is non-notable due to lack of reliable reviews in addition to an unreleased film. Other crew roles are insignificant. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the article doesn't have independent reliable sources, it's better to delete....Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is an article for promotional purposes and doesn't meet the notability criteria for companies. Sources rely on press releases masquerading as legitimate sources. RPSkokie (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to some other Adani-related page. Although I'm not big on the "press releases in disguise" line of argumentation, it does not seem likely that SIGCOV (i.e. about the Foundation itself, and not just "Foundation helped these people" trivial mentions) actually exists. However, I could envision the foundation being mentioned on a related article pertaining to the Adanis' activities. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Adani_Group#Philanthropy section is about the activity of this Foundation, so looks an appropriate redirect target. AllyD (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would work. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adani Group with a brief details as a new section maybe. Haueirlan (talk) 05:52, 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 Supernatural. Reading over all of the comments, this is an ATD. LizRead!Talk! 04:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a proper disambiguation page, having zero matching titles, and zero topics that would pass the "also known as" test. This is merely a partial list of things that would be described as types of something. Delete and redirect the title to Supernatural. BD2412T 03:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Rob3512 (Talk) 04:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not know what this is. Possibly a list? It certainly is not a disambiguation page for the purpose we use them for here. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please note that supernatural creature redirects there, and it is a notable topic discussed for example in the SF encyclopedia. Perhaps this should be a full blown article or a list, as indeed it likely should be more than just a disambig (I see that the reference I've added was removed as inappopriate for disambig pages...sigh). Not sure about a redirect, this used to be a redirect to Non-physical entity but some supernatural beings are, arguably, physical entities. And the suggestion of redirecting to Supernatural is not good, as that page doesn't mention any of the entities from the SF encyclopedia linked (vampires, golems, zombies, etc.). Hence, my vote is "keep and expand into a proper article"; leaving it as a list (a de facto "list of spernatural beings/list of supernatural creatures") will do for now if nobody wants to work on that. Ping User:TompaDompa, User:Uncle G, User:Daranios, whom I believe may be interested in working on this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I do understand what you are trying to get at here, but I think it is unworkable due to the breadth and amorphousness of the term "supernatural". Could every individual "god" be separately listed as a supernatural being? All of the ones on the list of Mesopotamian deities and the list of Germanic deities and the list of Yoruba deities, for example? Could Moses and Jesus and all of the bodhisattvas (enlightened beings) of Buddhism? What about completely fictional magical creatures like the Displacer beast and the Rust monster? At the end of the day, a supernatural being (or creature) is merely a being that is supernatural. If the problem is that they are not listed in that article, then expand that article to note the creatures. BD2412T 18:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: The fact that a topic is broad does not mean that there cannot be a proper list. If "supernatural being" is a notable topic, I and I am convinced it is, then it fullfills WP:LISTN. The corresponding guideline describes the solution for the problem you raise, and it's not deletion: "When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See [[new list]] link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list." Obviously, we don't want to list all individual gods here, even though they are supernatural beings. We group them. So we would stay with a link to Deity and/or Lists of deities, rather than listing them indivdually. Someone else has already done that for us. As for what to include, the "amorphousness of the term", we can solve this as we always do when things are contested: We include those beings that secondary sources say are supernatural only. The types currently included are verified by SF encyclopedia. Daranios (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is certainly not a valid disambiguation page. A list of supernatural beings seems indiscriminate, but in any case this is not a list article. The fact supernatural creature links here just means that redirect should also be deleted and for the same reason. In fact this and the redirect should also be deleted per WP:RFD#DELETE1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. Thus this should be deleted without any redirect. The argument that this could be a possible article, while not totally implausible, is not a reason to keep this article. This article is a poor starting point for any such article and WP:TNT would apply. If there is an encyclopaedic topic on this subject (and I see no evidence this is the case, but it is possible), an editor could just as easily create the page from scratch, and create a properly sourced and researched article, as to rework this one. Indeed, I would suggest they are more likely to do so if this hot mess is gone. Because the new article would, presumably, be sourced and completely different to this one, this AfD would not preclude them making such an article (assuming any such article is itself notable). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this page is deleted, the redirect will automatically be deleted as well per speedy deletion criterion G8. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not that there is a lack of content referring to beings or creatures as supernatural, but that there is such a wide range of it that it becomes impossible to actually have a page listing them. It would be rather like having an article on Things that are relatively heavy. BD2412T 05:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is evidence of what? That a tertiary source, an encyclopaedia of SF, has decided there is a valid article to be had about supernatural creatures in science fiction. List articles on Wikipedia must not be indiscriminate, and that article does suggest that something can be said about supernatural creatures in a particular genre of literature, but that is not the same as just having an article about supernatural beings which is quite certainly indiscriminate as User:BD2412 has shown. As I said, I see no evidence that any encylopaedic treatment of all supernatural beings in all genres is possible. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand to a proper list or article as per Piotrus. The topic is notable, most entries can and have been referenced by the SF Encyclopedia. So a secondary source tells us that these entries are not only "described as types of something", but rather they are indeed and do fit into a list of supernatural beings. Daranios (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Sirfurboy. I would also note in passing that the ref to the SF Encylopedia is specifically about supernatural beings in fiction - or science fiction to be precise. The scope of the Supernatural being page as it is is much broader, and if expanded would have to include such beings in religion and mythology, which will cause the page to bloat and become even more confusing to users landing on it. Retinalsummer (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Supernatural as indirectly stated by nom who said "Delete and Redirect". No need to confuse the situation by just voting Delete - the desired result can be accomplished simply with one edit (WP:BLAR). This is a plausible search term and should redirect somewhere. That being said, I have no prejudice against creating a properly referenced article here. Put promises of such an article are not a valid reason to keep this dab-like article in its present form. MB 21:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Supernatural per nom. The lead there already links to a handful of these concepts. Jontesta (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As disambiguation pages are not a search index. I do not believe it should be redirected either, as it is overly vague to refer to any one thing. The search function would be better for this particular term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list article. I'll note that it's incomplete, Angels and Djinn should obviously be included, but "supernatural being" is a proper superset of all the listed sorts of entities. I'm not sure this is best understood as a fictional topic; glad to see that it's been belatedly DELSORT'ed into mythology as well. Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RedirectDelete as nominator suggests. Fails WP:DBruxton (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: If this fails the requirements of a disambiguation page, why not treat it is a list? Daranios (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is indiscriminate as a list. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy: Why? It does not fall into the categories of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Supernatural, and I think supernatural being, are valid topics. It's a broad topic, but the guidelines tell us how to handle that, and we have other valid lists on very broad topics, just take Lists of women, for example. Daranios (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, supernatural beings are everything beyond natural from every religion and every mythology, as well as genre fiction, every being in fantasy and roleplaying games. It is literally every imaginable being that is not natural. Imagination is infinite and so is the list. It is only bounded by the speed at which new beings are invented. The effort of keeping such a list up to date is sisyphean, and the benefit from doing so is unclear. Why does anyone need a list that includes all hindu gods and all types of elves in all literature and a shambling mound and Q from Star Trek? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy: Presumably for the same reasons someone found it worth to maintain a List of lists of lists: To help navigate and explore the wonderful width of Wikipedia. As outlined above, this is not as difficult as it might appear at first glance. One can start out with what we have now, the types of supernatural beings which appear in tertiary sources. Maybe going through your examples can make this clearer: Hindu gods would not be included here individually, as they would be covered by a link to Lists of deities (just like no individual woman appears in Lists of women). So, arguably, would be Q. Not "all types of elves in all literature" would be included, that's the job of the elf article, which should be included assuming secondary/tertiary sources say they count as supernatural beings. The shambling mound is only a redirect at present, so we don't need to worry about in currently, and only when it's an article look if sources say its supernatural and of what type. Daranios (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to supernatural per nom, where these examples are already covered more properly. If there are some examples that are suitable, a slight merge would be acceptable. Jontesta (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to and slightly expand supernatural with material about some of the creatures (e.g vampire) if necessary. TNstingray (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Supernatural per above. Not a proper dab page, and similar in scope to that article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relist. No consensus, opinions are divided between Delete, Keep and Redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Supernatural makes the most sense. If this article was longer we could talk about merging the two but there really isn't much to work with here so redirect appears to be the best course of action here. Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝) 12:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I feel deletion is better, redirect is acceptable and would be content with that compromise. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Supernatural. As it stands, this is easy WP:TNT territory. If someone wants to create a proper article, best to draft from scratch (the page edit history is worthless). And Sirfurboy above provides a great argument on why this would be inappropriate and indiscriminate as a list. Satellizer el Bridget(Talk) 14:51, 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.
Not finding sufficient WP:SIGCOV of him (rather than work by him) on a search. Hits appear limited to trivial mentions in discussions of other things. A post about his podcast on some guy's blog is not reliable (nor is it sigcov of him). A mention of his podcast in a listicle is also not sigcov of him. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:22, 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.
Shrine of a Sufi saint. Sources in the article don’t demonstrate notability. I’ve searched in English and Urdu and can’t find anything else to support notability either. Mccapra (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:34, 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 04:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struggling to find sources that discuss the concept of survivor registries as a group, which would indicate notability of the broader category. Eddie891TalkWork 02:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to now be a concept used for disaster preparedness among first responders and in measures adopted by governments for disaster response. Its also used in medical research for following up on patients who survive illnesses (such as a "cancer survivor registry"); or even studying disaster survivors such as those from the Oklahoma City Bombing and the Chernobyl disaster. Some coverage of the concept can be found in the sources below.4meter4 (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Geller, Berta M. ; Mace, John ; Vacek, Pamela ; Johnson, Alison ; Lamer, Camilla ; Cranmer, David (2011). "Are Cancer Survivors Willing to Participate in Research?". Journal of community health. 36 (5): 772-778.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Geller, Berta M ; Vacek, Pamela M ; Flynn, Brian S ; Lord, Kelly ; Cranmer, David (2014). "What are cancer survivors' needs and how well are they being met?". The Journal of family practice. 63 (10): E7-16.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
North, Carol S ; Abbacchi, Anna ; Cloninger, C. Robert (2012). "Personality and posttraumatic stress disorder among directly exposed survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing". Comprehensive psychiatry. 53 (1): 1-8.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
North, Carol S. ; Cloninger, C. Robert ; Kitamura, Toshinori (2012). "Personality and Major Depression among Directly Exposed Survivors of the Oklahoma City Bombing". Depression research and treatment. 2012: 204741-6.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Ivanov, Victor, and Anatoly Tsyb (2006). "RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH EFFECTS 20 YEARS AFTER THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT: DATA OF THE NATIONAL RADIATION AND EPIDEMIOLOGICAL REGISTRY". Radiation Risk Estimates in Normal and Emergency Situations: 143-148.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
I mean, yes, it's clear that they exist. Nobody is saying that they aren't used, but even these sources don't really seem to give survivor registries themselves SIGCOV that push them to the level of GNG. I can't access all the journal articles on a quick search and the first article, which seems the most promising only actually says "survivor registries play an important role in improving outcomes and monitoring indicators." Eddie891TalkWork 02:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And it would seem that all the other sources provided only discuss individual survivor registries, which can certainly be mentioned in other articles. I don't see any other coverage of the broader concept of survivor registries. Eddie891TalkWork 02:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 02:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:20, 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.
Note: I marked my opinion at the AfD for Lotte Chilsung that it be speedily kept. There are no shortage of references to show that Lotte Chilsung meets WP:GNG. See the articles on the Korean wiki for starters. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 01:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The fate of this article is somewhat dependent on the resolution of the AFD about Lotte Chilsung. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lotte Chilsung. There's minimal verified content and none that I believe deserves to be merged. ––FormalDude(talk) 03:38, 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. Withdrawn by the nominator in face of the sources provided. (non-admin closure)Mhhosseintalk 12:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:BEFORE does not turn up any sources that appear to pass NCORP. ––FormalDude(talk) 00:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply] Edit: Nomination withdrawn in light of sources provided by Mikeblas below. ––FormalDude(talk) 03:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NCORP is not met by simply being traded on a world market–there are 60 major stock exchanges around the world combining for a total of more than 630,000 companies. Looking at the translations of the sources in the Korean wiki article, some of them are not even about the company, and I don't see any that meet the strict requirements of WP:ORGIND. Can you point to the three best sources please? ––FormalDude(talk) 00:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About trying to take over Pepsi bottling, plus their involvement in the bottle water market. [40], [41], [42], [43], [44] -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs some work and more sources, but the company is clearly notable. PopoDameron (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 01:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relist as I see no consensus right now. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:17, 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.
Non-notable book character (or feature, I guess.) This computer appeared in the Discworld series. All of the article is in-universe coverage, except for the "Real world connections" section. References include an Imugr post and a blog post. Others are obliquely related at best. There's little critical analysis, and adequate independent notability is not supported by available references. Mikeblas (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Like most Discworld characters/features, Hex is a critique/satire of modern computers. It's mentioned and discussed in several places other than the expected coverage in Turtle Recall, Discworld Companion, and the Science of Discworld. See [45], [46], and [47] for a few examples. There are many others when you include theses. Obviously, needs these integrated and cleaned up. Jclemens (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be pedantic: Yes, the above listed sources indicate that GNG is met, hence the keep !vote. Jclemens (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...and if this is not kept, merging to Characters of Discworld list is policy based ATD; deletion is not a policy-based outcome when V is met and there is clearly an ATD. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I remember looking at this before and concluding it is borderline notable, sadly, I didn't post any notes from my research anywhere I can find. A quick glance at GScholar and like reveals at least several mentions in passing, but whether we find two sources meeting WP:SIGCOV, I am unsure. I'll observe this discussion to see if we find something; User:Jclemens found some sources but did not assert the meet SIGCOV, so, errr. WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES is not good enough. I'd vote weak delete with preference to merge except the nagging feeling I did find something decent few years back (but, sigh, why didn't I add it to the article back then?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT. It may possibly be notable, but no content from the article itself is salvageable; it's entirely fancruft and WP:TRIVIA. If someone wants to write a new article on the topic and try for actual notability, be my guest. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As has been called out, the Hex appears in a number of secondary sources. In addition to those mentioned I would like to call out Elephants and Light Fantasy: Humour in Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, which analyzes how the Hex is funny as "deconstructive linguistic games which we expect from postmodernism" and the like. I also think that this is not a case of WP:TNT, as at least part of the introduction, some amount of the present plot summary (some of which can be referenced to said paper), and the appearances section can be used in an improved version of the article. Daranios (talk) 10:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 01:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a letter (to the editor) in New Scientist is not a reliable source (and is quite trivial), and has no more value here than a fan question or comment in comic book letter columns. Passing mentions and trivial pop-culture occurrences do not make an encyclopedia article. Make mine Marvel, but keep fancruft at fandom.com. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please engage with the sources in the AfD, rather than just one (of five) currently present in the article. Also, I'm not getting the comic book references--while Discworld has been depicted elsewise, it started as chapter books, not graphic novels. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources in the article, nor any of those identfied by Jclemens, amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. The letter to the editor, anonymous blog post and streetdirectory.com "editorial" aren't reliable sources; the Flaig book is a reliable source but doesn't contain significant coverage of the subject; and while I haven't been able to consult the Nicholls book, it doesn't seem likely that a book published in 1979 can support the notability of a fictional character that first appeared in 1994. Cockrell 2006 and Manova-Georgieva 2010 are also both single-sentence mentions, and Noone and Leverett 2020 doesn't seem to mention Hex at all. Sources identified by Daranios do bring us closer to establishing notability: Duvezin-Caubet 2016 discusses the character in a bit of depth in §11, and Butler 2008 seems to have a bit more than a single sentence (I also can't access the full text). But assuming snippet view isn't hiding something of something surprising value from us, this isn't quite enough. We'd need at least one more source similar to Duvezin-Caubet for notability to be clear; I haven't been able to find anything beyond what's already been unearthed. The very poor present state of the article and the work that would be needed to improve it if sources were to be found tips this, for me, from a weak delete to a solid one. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article subject doesn’t meet WP:GNG and the sources do not amount to significant coverage. Rustytrombone (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't amount to significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Agree with the assessment of Arms & Hearts. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Discworld characters if the contents of the article can be sufficiently abridged without losing the sourced material, otherwise keep - I lean towards merging this from a WP:PAGEDECIDE perspective, but given other users have shown sourcing exists and given that this isn't a WP:BLP I think an argument exists for keeping this page if the content of the sources is enough to warrant more than a couple of paragraphs of coverage, especially given the list of Discworld characters is already rather long. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting because participants here are sharply divided between strong Delete and Keep. Is a Merge a possible third option? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's not meeting GNG criteria for a stand alone article. Leaning towards merging this page or maybe giving it a try by TNTing the whole page. --Mhhosseintalk 12:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Discworld characters. There are is evidence so far of this clearly meeting GNG, at the same time, there are some passing mentions and like. Surprisingly, Hex is not added to the linked list. I suggest merging a brief summary plus whatever the best sources we have here and in the article say to that article. If the consensus is to delete, not merge, then we should do a redirect there instead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Discworld characters for consensus. If the consensus is to delete then a redirect would be preferred, as WP:ATD and to WP:PRESERVE. Something should definitely be written there but that can happen any time as long as this isn't deleted. Archrogue (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:GNG not met. First source is statistical coverage only, second source is not independent as it's from the team. On a search, only found this scant source, which at about 50 words long is hardly WP:SIGCOV. Nothing further located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should be a redirect to Tottenham's selected season page, which hasn't even been created yet. But the article is slightly wrong, he played two games for Tottenham. One league game, he was only selected to play that due to injury to another player. And one Charity fund match. I know a bit more about him than what is on the article due to the resources I have. But it's no where near enough for GNG guidelines being as strict as they are. He died in St. Albans and is buried there, where I believe his family still reside. Govvy (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. After withdrawal of nomination. LizRead!Talk! 06:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the rambling lead added by an IP this April. I'm leaning keep since it seems like a valid subarticle from Falconry#Booted_eagles_(Aquila), but it could be merged there too. Reywas92Talk 22:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks.
Keep and I withdraw my nomination . ——🦝 The InteraccoonaleWill be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 02:35, 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.
.jpg)
Note: Lotte Chilsung has also been nominated for deletion because there is no evidence of its notability. NCORP is not met just by being traded on a world market per WP:LISTED. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination . ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 02:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)