Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 06	December 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 10:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Florida wildfires[edit]

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

Per IP request: I am nominating this article for deletion because a WP:BEFORE search found exactly one source - [1], not enough to meet GNG and therefore non-notable. 166.198.251.71 (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC) submitted on behalf of stated IP by UtherSRG (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, Lists, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's the Miami Herald in April talking about the many fires to date and prospects for the rest of the year. That would seem to count as a source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources still is not enough. 166.198.251.71 (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, you PROD this initially with WP:PERMASTUB which I don't agree with because the essay states that stubs are fine to have even if they never expand. – The Grid (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a third, a predictive one about the upcoming year posted by Fox Weather at the end of 2022. That makes three. Does that meet your secret magic number? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
while 3 sources describing the impacts is enough, that source does not provide any notability for the topic since it’s before any wildfires. Still not meeting GNG.166.198.251.71 (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems an odd requirement to stick on it. We have articles on elections that have not yet occurred, Olympics that are merely planned. Predictive sources focused on a topic seem indeed relevant to notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Based on WP:NEXIST rational. Similar situation to 1999 Aïn Témouchent earthquake, which passed AfD with 2 sentences and no in-line references under NEXIST (Has since been improved - version that passed AfD). That’s not an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but rather showing a confirmation that NEXIST is a 100% valid argument. Here are sources related to this article based on a single google search:

WGCU
WGCU
National Park Service
WINK
NBC-2
WLNR
WLNR

So, sources exist for this article, despite the article not being in good condition. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient sources listed on this page to meet WP:GNG. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6 of those are for only the Sandy Fire, so the scope could be refocused.166.198.251.71 (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Sandy fire may (or may not) be deserving its own page, but we have multiple reliable sources looking at the year as a whole, so that deserves a page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, we do seem to be at that magic number of 3, so there might be enough notability to keep.--166.198.251.71 (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and expand. News coverage is more than sufficient to establish notability. Owen× ☎ 15:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. There is definitely significant coverage on the fires. Conyo14 (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not so notable like many other recent wildfires. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have expanded the article with the sources presented by WeatherWriter above, plus more sources found in a thorough BEFORE search. The article satisfies notability guidelines, more expansion to come soon. But as it stands now, the article meets GNG. ~ Tails Wx 19:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources satisfied GNG? Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, due to the existence of sources that demonstrate notability. As mentioned by others, notability is not derived from the article’s quality. Zsinj^Talk 14:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; AFD requested by IP sock of banned user Andrew5. wizzito | say hello! 03:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: AfD requested by IP of banned sock. Let'srun (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An AfD nominated by a banned sock is procedurally identical to a withdrawn nomination. Once there is any other support for deletion, the AfD can no longer be procedurally speedy-kept. As much as I'd like to see the article kept, if your only argument is that it was nominated by a sock, your !vote carries little weight. Owen× ☎ 11:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A speedy keep can't progress because one user voted for deletion (according to WP:CLOSE)? – The Grid (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, but a procedural speedy keep due to an improper or withdrawn nomination cannot progress once there is any support for deletion, per WP:WDAFD: If no one has supported deletion of the article you may close the discussion yourself as a WP:Speedy keep. That lone "Delete" !vote by an editor in good standing will likely ultimately lose to the consensus, but once there, we cannot sweep it under the rug just because the nominator was disqualified. At this point, the AfD must be allowed to run its course. Owen× ☎ 16:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep': There's no reason for such a list to be deleted, other than WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Even if the majority of these fire aren't as notable, the list should be acceptable. If we delete this, we may as well delete all lists of disasters, simply because they aren't major disasters. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elemental Machines[edit]

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

This is an advert more than an article; it is insufficiently supported by references, most of which do not resolve to news stories. It fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Tagishsimon (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gnews is all PR announcements, so is what's used for sourcing here. Delete for lack of coverage in RS, not meeting CORP. Oaktree b (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chronographos[edit]

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

I couldn't find reliable sources to prove its notability. It has been in CAT:UNREF for more than 16 years. Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All I can find is [2] which is O Israelitis Chronographos. I don't think this is the same thing! So far, I can't find anything about a publication with that name.Knitsey (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Knitsey It's a different paper. This one was first published in 1899 and was in print until 2005, but not continuously. Today's paper is only in name related to the original one. Many important journalists and/or writers had contributions to the paper, among others el:Δημοσθένης Βουτυράς (Demosthenis Voutyras), and el:Σπύρος Μελάς (Spyros Melas). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - So the one source that we thought that we had doesn't even demonstrate the existence of this newspaper. How are readers to verify that this even exists at all, just for starters? The Greek Wikipedia is equally lacking in ways that readers can check that even the claim of existence is true, let alone provide a detailed article on the subject. Indeed, how can we even tell that your claim in this discussion is true, when the Greek Wikipedia equally unverifiably asserts something contradictory? Uncle G (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uncle G There is an article on Chronographos in the Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Ελληνικού Τύπου 1784-1974, vol. 4, pp. 367-68 (Encyclopaedia of the Greek Press -in Greek), published by the Institute of Historical Research of the National Hellenic Research Foundation. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Companies, and Greece. Skynxnex (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No demonstration of notability beyond WP:PASSING mentions. I've been following this discussion for a while, and did some searching myself for RS, and came up with essentially nothing. HappyWith (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K.L.E Society's KLE College of Engineering and Technology[edit]

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

Spam article relying entirely on citations to the university's own website. No third party sources, no evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Shellwood (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability doesn't meet. Lack of independent third party references. Currently it is based on self published articles. B-Factor (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of New Caledonia international footballers. Daniel (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Houala[edit]

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

Redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions such as 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, France, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment, best to merge. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 17:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Daniel (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Blogg[edit]

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

MLB player with a 10-day career, other than databases there does not seem to be any coverage Valereee (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Valereee (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As with all 19th-century MLB players, Blogg has an entry in The Rank and File by David Nemec; his entry is actually pretty extensive compared to some of the others and almost certainly counts as significant coverage. MLB.com hosts a "blog post about the only MLB player named Blogg", pretty brief though; there's also brief newspaper articles I located about incidents he was involved in while umpiring, see Cincinnati Enquirer and Philadelphia Inquirer. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the SIGCOV from Nemec's book and the Cincinnati Enquirer article means Bloggs meets GNG. There's also a bit about him in this, though I wouldn't rely on it to establish notability. Hatman31 (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is enough out there to establish notability and these 19th century players need to be given a bit more leeway. Spanneraol (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's a mention of him in the Virginian Pilot in 1962 – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on his book entry and the other sources mentioned above. Oaktree b (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough to pass GNG. Kkb091 (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Richards[edit]

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

Despite the award, I can't find any coverage beyond the two sources I added to the article, which by themselves don't seem enough to establish notability, especially because they are concentrated specifically around the awarding. Can't find enough to justify a stand-alone article here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of New Caledonia international footballers. Daniel (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Nyipie[edit]

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

Redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, France, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 17:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of New Caledonia international footballers. Daniel (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Boucheron[edit]

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

Redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. The subject has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions such as 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, France, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 17:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 23:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Tatz[edit]

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

~~Draftify~~ ~~Delete~~ ~~Withdrawn, speedy keep~~ Draftify or delete, see below. Unsourced BLP from mainspace. Mass move of unreferenced articles to mainspace. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, as specified above:

microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to still be active [3] but no coverage in RS. This !vote is only for Tatz, I've not reviewed the others listed. Oaktree b (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mack is also a !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closing admin: I'll declare that I've since recieved off wiki advice and would request that any unreviewed nom after 7 days be treated as an expired WP:BLPPROD. Thanks microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 22:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MicrobiologyMarcus,

I'm not sure that I understand your request. Since Oaktree b has commented, and other editors likely will too, I don't see how this AFD can be called "unreviewed". I also do not think you can convert an AFD nominated article to one that has been tagged with a BLPPROD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz,

Yeah, I understand. My thoughts were that these were all good draftify candidates but because they had been moved out, were considered contested and thus had to go through the AfD process. My original thinking was that because these were all completely unsourced, they would make a good candidate for bundled draftify, could all be done at once and save editor time (no good deed...).

But then, after seeking advice off-wiki on the NPP discord, I was told that because these were BLP (I see now, all but one) they would've instead qualified for BLPPROD.^[a] And because BLP policy is one of, if not the most important things on the project, I thought that should supersede. I wasn't sure if guidance at BLPPROD said that I could place both an AfD tag and a BLPPROD tag at the same time. I'm also aware of the respective timelines for each: an expired prod should, in theory, be deleted after 7 days; whereas a AfD may not reach consensus after the first week and be relisted. This led me to my comment above, where I was hoping that should the closing admin see that if any individual page not receive any !keep votes and also not have any citations added to it after a week here (I've left two notes and a template on the authors' talk page) would it be possible to treat those pages as a BLPPROD failure and delete them.

I can see now that we're obviously headed straight to the scene of the accident so I'll now ask your advice. I'd be happy to withdraw and ask for a procedural speedy keep on this page, and then I will not bundle but individually tag all the above (less the one non-biography) as BLPPROD and start the process with those.

Let me know. Thanks, microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 16:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC) microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 16:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to unbundle this AFD, keeping this one for Carl Tatz, and opening separate AFDs for others if relevant. This is headed to a WP:TRAINWRECK. MarioGom (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I think all of these articles need to be draftified. MarioGom (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MicrobiologyMarcus, despite your withdrawal of this nomination, this AFD can not be closed as Speedy Keep because at least one editor has advocated Deletion. If you think that these articles should be Draftified, you can specify that option in your statement. Perhaps other editors will agree. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify all per WP:TRAINWRECK. This AfD should be procedurally closed ASAP because it's a nonsense to continue with it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify all per above. No indication of meeting any notability guidelines, as all of them are unsourced. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ Side note: that's fine, I'm not too proud to admit when something is a learning opportunity. Experience is the best teacher and for unique situations like this, I'll know how to address them in the future.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Daniel (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Albert of Schaumburg-Lippe[edit]

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

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Sourced solely to directories and online family history self-published websites. DrKay (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany. DrKay (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, should not be deleted. the Prince Albert of Schaumburg-Lippe is a historical person and is of interest for a online bibliotheca like Wikipedia. --92.76.102.53 (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very little of the article is actually about him, as opposed to his relatives.2601:249:9301:D570:F866:765C:D649:10D (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't find that he would be notable for something other than his family tree. His only page on other wikis is nlwiki, where no sources are cited. Ping me if evidence of notability occurs. FromCzech (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find sources that go into enough detail to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques le Roux[edit]

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

Howdy!

I'm honestly making this submission with something of a heavy heart, as I've prolly put in a few collective days of work into tryin' to source and improve this article. It survived two attempts at speedy deletion and a proposed deletion on the basis of the subject's promisin' international career. However, after searching high and low, from JSTOR to Naxos to, well, Google, I've dug up hardly anything at all about Mr. le Roux, let alone notable coverage. While he's no doubt got an enviable career, it doesn't seem to me that this performer meets the notability requirements for a Wikipedia article. But of course, I'm more than happy to be corrected!

Thanks! ~Judy _{(call it in!)} 18:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Theatre, and South Africa. ~Judy _{(call it in!)} 18:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see any notable productions that he has performed in, except for possibly this: "In 2013, he sang in the world premiere of the Philip Glass opera The Lost, at the opening of the Linz opera house." Glass is an important composer, and singing a role in the premiere of one of his operas (though a very obscure one) is something, but it was not a long run, and the rest of his career seems to be in non-notable productions. So far, I'd say Delete, unless someone finds something major. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is all I can find [4], different person. Nothing for this person found. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 per WP:SNOW. I'm not usually a fan of cutting AfD discussions short but there has been unusually heavy participation and consensus is overwhelming. No need to keep this open just to rack up the pile on !votes. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Free Palestine (phrase)[edit]

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

An article about two words sometimes used together. Even ignoring the transparent editorialising in the article, Wikipedia is not a platform for documenting the conjunction of words. We already have articles (probably too many) on movements, organisations individuals etc that may have used the phrase, where the context is explained, and the intent clarified. This article does the opposite - it purports to demonstrate that the phrase has some sort of independent notability, while citing sources (poor ones) that instead amply illustrate that two words (neither of which is well-defined) can be used to describe almost anything vaguely related to Palestine, past, present, and future. This is a thoroughly misguided exercise in polemic, not even approximating to anything that belongs in an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless article. Asserts that it is a commonly used phrase without any evidence and sources its origin to some pre 1948 committee no-one ever heard of. Assume the basic intention is to suggest that it was Zionists who originally wanted Palestine to be free (they did, of British rule, but the locals (Palestinians) also wanted that, so that's irrelevant).Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (note I am the creator) - The article more than easily meets the criteria for WP:GNG. If you think its is WP:NPOV than you are welcome to edit it, although I disagree with that. Just because Selfstudier never heard of a committee, and their mission, from 80 years ago, does not mean it is not notable. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Palestinian nationalism Delete. NPOV issues & poor sourcing aside, the phrase itself isn't notable enough to have its own article, and a paragraph about the slogan can be created in the target article. sawyer / talk 19:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Those two words can mean many different things to different people holding up signs. One deleted claim was that it meant the mass murder of Jews, suggesting the article exists to push a political narrative and bordering on G10. A two-state solution isn’t even mentioned, likely the most desired by Palestinians. Instead, it states the modern day meaning is the elimination of Israel or Hamas, bordering on G3. If this belongs anywhere, it’s in a relevant current article(s) in the context of that article. Meanwhile this article is insulting and provocative to some. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be a random collection of trivia instead of a coherent article. Different uses of a single phrase in over a century of a region's political history. And no historical source indicating this is a distinct topic from the various political movements in Palestine. Dimadick (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, I just received a Wiki-mail stating:

Hi - A group of us wrote an article that is now up for deletion and we are asking that seasoned users who know the importance of Wikipedia will vote to keep a neutral, well-researched article that gives context to global political events as well as is likely to prevent people from killing one another as they will see they are asking for the same thing.
Please vote in the name of peace, knowledge, and neutrality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Palestine_(phrase)".

I have no opinion on the issue itself. BD2412 T 20:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: It seems the person who wrote that also wrote the same thing on the Israel wikiproject, but has since been indefinitely blocked - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. — mw (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the numerous others above. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 20:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It feels like the entire purpose of the article, as it exists today, can be summarized in one sentence: "Free Palestine" used to mean something else before 1948. Yes, we get it. If redirecting, then to what target? Palestinian nationalism only covers the post-1967 sense of the phrase. Turning the page into a DAB seems silly, but is the only alternative to deletion I can think of. Owen× ☎ 20:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @OwenX: From the river to the sea is used similarly and often together, could redirect there - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article's content is not policy compliant. In reality the sources do not speak about the phrase as a phrase so WP:WORDISSUBJECT as in the phrase "free Palestine" being a viable topic is not fulfilled. The sources only contain the sequence of words "free Palestine". This is WP:OR. I will begin removal of non-compliant content to alleviate confusion. —Alalch E. 20:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom, this is not an encyclopedic topic. A phrase being used does not make it meet GNG, nothing shown that there is WP:SIGCOV about the phrase. Agree with above on the eval of AtDs. // Timothy :: talk 20:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note There has been a confirmed effort at canvassing by email in an effort to preserve this article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have received the same email as noted above. —Alalch E. 20:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Helpful hint: If you are going to try and canvass for some outcome at a community discussion, don't email your plan to administrators. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was also canvassed to this discussion by @Raconcilio, with them requesting that I vote keep, which I obviously won't be doing. TarnishedPath^talk 05:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The very first sentence ("The phrase Free Palestine is a commonly used phrase which has had different meaning throughout the years") makes it clear that this is an attempt at a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT and while there could be a WP:WORDISSUBJECT article about the phrase "free Palestine" were this a notable phrase, the subject of the phrase itself is a non-notable subject because the phrase has not received significant coverage in reliable sources as a phrase.—Alalch E. 21:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing neutral about it. WP is supposed to be dispassionate and neutral. Atsme 💬 📧 22:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This deletion discussion can either be about the article as it was when it was nominated for deletion at 1832 GMT, 7 December, or at it is at 2232 GMT, 7 December. The current version does not have enough information to be encyclopedic and is not even a dictionary definition. The version as nominated is non-non-neutral, but cannot be made neutral, at least not long enough to avoid causing dumpster fires. That is, the main purpose of any substantive version would be as a vehicle for conflict. The canvassing email says:
Please vote in the name of peace, knowledge, and neutrality.
Yes. Unfortunately, that requires deleting the article, because it is flamebait, but nothing more. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per pretty much everyone else. Salmoonlight (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I disagree, we might as well WP:SNOW close it. While not exactly the same, I would propose redirecting to From the river to the sea. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 23:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can withdraw your filing if you wish and it would save editor time and will be snow closed soon if you don't. But semi-equating "Free Palestine" with "From the river to the sea" is a suggestion that has zero chance. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Plain DICDEF. I also strongly oppose a redirect to From the river to the sea; we ought have no hand in conflating Palestinian nationalism with the destruction of the state of Israel. Ravenswing 00:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Phrases need to be the topic of extensive bibliography. Not debated or mentioned just a bit. Also, objecting to the suggested redirect as that is another slogan or chant. If any ATD is relevant, then just maybe a disambiguation page. WP:SNOW. gidonb (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Give me liberty, or give me death!, Bread and Roses, They shall not pass, Don't Tread on Me, Viva la revolución, Don't Mess with Texas, Inquilab Zindabad, Death to fascism, freedom to the people etc political slogans are completely appropriate topics for this encyclopedia, moreover, that political slogans might be used in different contexts with different meanings over time, is precisedly of encyclopedic concern. So this is not a case of WP:NOT. However, this might be an WP:OR / WP:SYNTH issue... the test here needs to be whether or not there are sources which explicitly discuss the slogan in and of itself, rather than different sources indicating its use in different contexts that are agglomorated into an article (hence SYNTH). I wouldn't classify a disambiguation page as necessarily "silly", we do have Live Free or Die (disambiguation), for example. Agree that redirect to From the river to the sea is inappropriate. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion as it has some sigcov as a phrase [5], but a merger with from the river to the sea may be ideal. Mach61 (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what, exactly? The article is a single eleven-word sentence. Ravenswing 02:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Obviously a consensus exists to delete, and I'm not going to try and change that. That said, I think that it is possible we can have an encyclopaedic article on this topic, essentially covering the history of its use by various organisations no matter how unsavory or otherwise, without attempting to define the "correct" use of it. However, it is very obviously implausible that such a thing will ever happen. It suffers from the chronic problem that WP:NODEADLINE applies while virtually any omission of information is automatically a massive NPOV issue. Anyone motivated enough to delve into the cesspit and create the article will have a POV, and express it. Therefore, if (when) the article is deleted, I would suggest an IAR salt along with it. Fermiboson (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Prior to the article getting a heavy haircut it was a mess of WP:OR, which is what happens when you try and cobble together stuff which isn't notable to start with. Also as mentioned by another editor WP:NOTDICT. TarnishedPath^talk 05:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per complaints above. WP:NOTDICT. Although it is commonly used in protests, it should better be at an article about protests supporting Palestine. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 05:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of The Walking Dead (comics) characters. Daniel (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deanna Monroe[edit]

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

Non-notable the Walking Dead character. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list of characters from the show. The reception consists of one lisicle ranking and one passing mentions from the show review. That's not enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect I would agree with a redirect.
Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems reasonable, given the lack of reliable coverage. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Society of Hispanic MBAs[edit]

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

Lots of mentions and reprinted press releases, but no SIGCOV in reliable sources. People wishing to find sources should also look under their current name, Prospanica. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and United States of America. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Puerto Rico and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Doctor Who villains. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beep the Meep[edit]

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

I was really hoping The Star Beast would help salvage this article, but Beep just doesn't seem to meet notability thresholds, even now. All the articles I can find on him are either plot summaries and recaps, information on the casting of Miriam Margolyes, or the minor controversy caused by the pronouns scene. The latter can be easily covered by The Star Beast's main article, and if any additional commentary on Beep exists, it's either in reviews of the episode or in physical comics information, which cannot be easily accessed. Should sources turn up, I'd be happy to improve/recreate this article, but I don't think Beep has what it takes right now. A redirect to either The Star Beast or the Doctor Who Villains List is probably the best AtD, given there really isn't much to merge beyond casting information. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Comics and animation. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To list of Doctor Who villains, there is a chance that the character becomes notable someday. So in the spirt of WP:PRESERVE a redirect is more suitable. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its a resaonble search term due to The Star Beast. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not enough SIGCOV for it to be notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Much as I like the Meep, and while he did carry some popularity in the fanbase even before the TV appearance, I don't think there are enough secondary sources supporting the character himself, even if you could find some articles in Doctor Who Magazine. However, since the character has a few appearances, is somewhat notable for being an EU character who made it on TV, and most relevantly is in a way the type specimen for his species (note in the original comic he was only "the Meep", something the TV story stuck to, and "Beep" became his name later), I would suggest moving to a section on List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens. While individual characters would go on the villains list, I think the Meep is more notable as an "alien creature" than a "villain"; the same "cuddly creature turns evil" idea applies to all the Meeps and Beep happens to be the main, recurring one. Rather like how the Abzorbaloff and Racnoss are covered there. Chubby Bub (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Star Beast including as much of the original content as possible. Beep is mainly noteable as the villain of both versions of TSB. TSB is good redirect point for any mentions on The Ratings War audio/list of audios etc etc. Romomusicfan (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Daniel (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Under Armour sponsorships[edit]

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

For the same reason as these following...

Primarily WP:OR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTADVERTISING. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, Fashion, Sports, Lists, and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete per ample precedent of other such articles. Mangoe (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, as outside our encyclopedic scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the same reasons as all the AfD's above. Ajf773 (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:OR, WP:PROMO and WP:NOTDIRECTORY Let'srun (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reasons as the others. I have been working my way through the category containing these articles, so thanks for nominating this one and saving me some time :) Joseph2302 (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of non-notable awards by a non-notable company. Maproom (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmet Enes[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Deleted in trwiki also. Not notable. Kadı Message 17:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Turkey. Kadı Message 17:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is WP:CIRCULAR as well. Aintabli (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Dadasare Abdullahi. Daniel (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It Can Now be Told[edit]

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

Given the current sourcing, the book doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. At present, the article cites only one source independent of the subject. I have searched for additional sources but cannot find any. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at the moment. I too could find no secondary sources to meet WP:NBOOK, and the autobiography appears to have not won any major awards, nor is the author outstandingly significant historically enough for their books to generally be considered notable.

The Night Watch (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The books attains WP: Creative and the third and fifth guideline of WP: NBOOK stating;
..The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable.
Apart from being an editor of Gaskiya Ta Fi Kwabo, that should be the main work of Dadasare Abdullahi.

Another guideline states;

...The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.

That is to address what Dadasare Abdullahi had undergone. In summary, the book as an autobiography passes WP: NBOOK and WP: CREATIVE for the author. Best, Mastashat (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE is part of the subject-specific notability guidelines that applies to articles about people, not books, so that would be inapplicable here. The fifth NBOOK criteria is meant to apply to exceptional authors with great historical significance, and who are subject to great academic attention regarding their life, career, and bibliography. That would typically apply to highly influential names like J. R. R. Tolkien, Rabindranath Tagore, Maya Angelou, Ursula K. Le Guin, and others. Unless there is evidence that Dadasare Abdullahi has been subject to significant critical attention and her bibliography and life are heavily studied by academics, I do not see a reason why criteria 5 would apply here. I also don't see why this book has contributed to a religious/political movement, art form, or motion picture when I could hardly find any secondary sources that provided significant coverage of the book, much less reliable ones. The Night Watch (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Dadasare Abdullahi: rather than debate the questionable notability of the book, we can simply add this one-sentence stub to the well-sourced article about the author/subject. Owen× ☎ 20:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean redirect because all pertinent information is already in the author's article. The Night Watch (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't verify that the three references are included in the target, but if they are - sure, Redirect is the way to go. Owen× ☎ 12:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dadasare Abdullahi: I saw a review at AJOL but that only does not establish notability. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – the book is mentioned in the article but is unsourced. Just consider importing those sources to the article, as the nominated article has no hope of expansion given no relevant sources on Google. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 10:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dadasare Abdullahi: Doesn't appear to pass WP:NBOOK. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Daniel (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Nakti[edit]

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

The article mainly has some paid/promotional sources and fails to demonstrate WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. There are some mentions in publications, but not in sufficient depth. Thilsebatti (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Took a while to get through Google Translate, but the sources do not add up to WP:GNG and subject fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Also, the conduct of moving something back to the mainspace with a disambiguated title after objecting to draftification is very familiar. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV. B-Factor (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. MisterWizzy (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the reasons given above. Jeet Dev^talk 05:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Harrison (priest)[edit]

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

Nothing much on the page suggests notability standards are met. JMWt (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and Belize. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- His only potential notability is as dean in the Cathedral of a very small diocese. It might be legitimate to have a list of deans in the article on the cathedral, but not a freestanding article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Archdeacon of Kilmacduagh as an AtD. Daniel (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Hall (priest)[edit]

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

Nothing much on the page suggests that notability standards are met, nothing else found JMWt (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Ireland. JMWt (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another one of these WP:NOTDIRECTORY/WP:NOTEVERYTHING ("almost every clergy member in the Anglican Church of Ireland") articles from the creating editor. There are no sources provided (and seemingly none available) that are anything other than directory-style entries and similar passing mentions. There is insufficient biographical coverage to seemingly establish even the basic facts (DOB, POB, DOD, etc). To the extent that we cannot seemingly confirm the century in which the subject lived/died. If the subject's entire notability (as seems to be the case) is associated with their appointment to a specific role, then I do not see how independent notability (for a standalone article) is supported or justified. Guliolopez (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Archdeacon of Kilmacduagh per WP:ATD-R; archdeacons aren't inherently notable, and I concur with the above. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We often do have articles on archdeacons in England and Ireland, perhaps because some have dictionary of national biography articles. It is probably safe to guess that he died in 1803. We have a citation for Trinity College alumni (but not linked), which should provide some indication of his age. Nevertheless probably NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: The notability for archdeacons with DNB entries stems not from the position but (in some cases as one of several factors) from WP:ANYBIO#3. Otherwise, they still have to be notable through other criteria, and this is not the case for Hall, hence my !vote against an article. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Daniel (talk) 10:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic Chemistry Olympiad[edit]

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

Uncited, fails notability microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 13:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Science. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 13:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Skynxnex (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this was deleted in 2018 as PROD but the author recently contested it with the deleting admin. Still not notable event. Renata•3 18:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: not eligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is not notable, and no coverage in independent sources could be found. --BoraVoro (talk) 09:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Daniel (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amrop Partnership[edit]

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

Coverage is mostly press releases or routine. It does not pass WP:ORGCRIT. MarioGom (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Belgium. MarioGom (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the firm is old and notable, the coverage is extensive (especially in books, magazines and newspaper databases), however, the page needs to be expanded with those sources. I've just incorporated comprehensive coverage from a 2005 edition of The Economist. This piece (the Economist) particularly describes how the Amrop Hever (the firm's name at that time) works, uniting nearly 50 companies worldwide working under various local firms, who were previously merged into Amrop Hever global group. --Johnpaul2030 (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is the largest global and European executive search company, and some reliable sources are available - I expanded the Amrop page with two such books/sources. One has stated that Amrop is working as a hybrid executive firm and is the largest one in Europe. Another source identifies it as a major global company, noting its presence in Australia since the 1980s. --Rodgers V (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have substantially updated the page with new sources, enhancing its credibility and providing in-depth coverage. These updates include numerous articles from Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, biggest German newspaper (I luckily have access to it), which provides a detailed portrayal of Amrop's history especially in Germany. Additionally, I included sources from Bloomberg, as well as newspapers from Peru, Chile, and other countries, covering Amrop's global impact and raising its notability. Also, the historical depth was added through sources that date back to the company's founding in 1977, including Canadian newspapers from the 1980s accessed through the Quebec National Archive. I think more sources have not been touched and used yet, as in every country, the company works or has worked under various names, and Amrop is only an umbrella name. --DraculaParrot (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it in this form. With multiple reliable sources and coverage from the 1980s, 2000s, and including recent ones from across the globe, it stands as a notable entity. --BoraVoro (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy at Purdue[edit]

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

References are mostly press releases, non-idependent, passing mentions, or do not discuss Krach Institute at all. This does not pass WP:ORGCRIT. MarioGom (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. MarioGom (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Indiana and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Fediverse as an AtD. Daniel (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misskey[edit]

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

It does not seem to pass WP:ORGCRIT. There is some reliable sources coverage [6], but far from sustained in time. MarioGom (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Software, and Japan. MarioGom (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Orientls (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: there are other sources, however they are in Japanese.
49.145.227.104 (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fediverse. While Misskey is a federated software, it is worth redirecting to the subject. 49.145.227.104 (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up this article as a result of reading about Misskey on DTM Station [7] published 2023-12-08, and I found the article useful, for what that's worth. 162.156.184.211 (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Get it Made[edit]

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

It does not seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. MarioGom (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. MarioGom (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 14:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xonsh[edit]

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

It does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. There's a Linux Magazine review [8], and a few passing mentions in technical books, but I do not think that's significant enough. MarioGom (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to meet GNG. Orientls (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of coverage by reliable sources. Cortador (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 2018 book by Cody Jackson is far from a passing mention, but I do say multiple sources, and I haven't found a second one yet. Jackson isn't enough by itself, not least because it lacks such basic information as the name of the inventor, that an encyclopaedia article would need. I can find no independent source that even says such basic stuff. Uncle G (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series. Daniel (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bastila Shan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bastila Shan

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

Not sure if theres any SIGCOV here. I'm also having hard time of finding sources at google search that mainly talks about the character (I'm not even sure an Inverse source helps her notability). GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Looking through it, most of it is relying on lists or odd references. What actually seems to be discussing her, as a character, is minor at best.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. There's some meat here that genuinely is pretty solid, but a lot of it is fluff. Once that's removed, there just barely isn't enough to properly stand on, in my view. Not opposed to this being recreated in the future should more be found, and if more is found in the span of this debate, then I'd be happy to change my vote. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge There are some truly desperate mentions padding out this article, but it shouldn't subtract from the areas where this character has received more WP:SIGCOV. It's admittedly pretty borderline, but I think the solution would be to clean-up the reception section and cut/summarize the trivial mentions, per WP:ATD. At that point, there can be some discussion about whether to merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Max Swarner[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. All the performances and awards cited in the article are local to the Dallas / Fort Worth area. My WP:BEFORE searches found more local material, the usual social media and a range of run-of-the-mill publicity stuff for productions he's appeared in - just the kind of thing you'd expect for a working performer. However there's no in-depth discussion of him in notable publications that aren't local to the Dallas area, which would be needed to show he passes WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Neiltonks (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Theatre. Neiltonks (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Codimg[edit]

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

This does not even come close to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. Barely any coverage in reliable sources. MarioGom (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. MarioGom (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not to forget how many promotional sources it has. Orientls (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Medicine, Psychology, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NHS Apps Library[edit]

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

This was a "library" (essentially a branding excercise) which existed online for a few years and subsequently closed. All the sources cited are primary and very little third-party sources available on search. Overall I do not think this meets threshold of notability. Elshad (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and United Kingdom. Elshad (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Ballantine[edit]

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

As it currently stands, this biography is a coat rack for United States v. Flynn. The subject does not seem to meet notability criteria for a standalone article, and the events which are notable already have their own articles. Both a notability issue and potentially a BLP issue. MarioGom (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and United States of America. MarioGom (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Daniel (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christa Jones[edit]

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

The subject of the article is non-notable outside of a single event, which is otherwise well documented at 2020_United_States_census#Citizenship_question_debate and Thomas_Hofeller#2020_Census_Citizenship_Question. The end result is a coatrack article with undue balance of a single issue, without any other biographic information. So this is both not notable and potentially a BLP issue. MarioGom (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and United States of America. MarioGom (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found brief coverage of Jones in reliable sources in the context of the single event, e.g.

Sources list

Rights activists say emails boost their case on 2020 census discrimination (AP/LAT, June 15, 2019)

The newer documents, unearthed this week during a further forensic analysis, that show how far back the discussions about adding the citizenship question go, the plaintiffs argue. Attached to their Friday filing is a January 2015 email from Christa Jones to Hofeller that a 2015 test of census data collection presented “an opportunity to mention citizenship as well.” Jones is now chief of staff to the director of the U.S. Census Bureau.

Judge to reconsider whether discrimination behind Trump census citizenship question (The Hill, June 19, 2019)

The emails suggest that Christa Jones, who is now the chief of staff to the director of the Census Bureau, was in contact with the late GOP redistricting strategist Thomas Hofeller in 2015. [...] the Justice Department refuted the argument in court filings, calling it a “bizarre claim” and noting that Jones had sent the email to the strategist in 2015, during the Obama administration. [...] the ACLU has now asked the Supreme Court to allow new evidence that it similarly filed last month indicating that Hofeller — the same strategist who was purportedly in contact with Jones — played a previously undisclosed role in developing the citizenship question.

A Father, a Daughter, and the Attempt to Change the Census (New Yorker, July 12, 2019)

Common Cause also found e-mail exchanges on the hard drives between Hofeller and Christa Jones, a longtime census employee who is now chief of staff to the deputy director of the U.S. Census Bureau. Jones e-mailed Hofeller about the census in 2010, and again in 2015, when she pointed out that the bureau was soliciting public comments, and noted, “This can also be an opportunity to mention citizenship as well.”

A Census Whodunit: Why Was the Citizenship Question Added? (NYT, updated Dec 2, 2019)

The disclosures, in a House of Representatives inquiry and a New York lawsuit, bolster existing evidence that a Republican political strategist, Thomas B. Hofeller, played at least an indirect role in crafting a legal rationale for adding the question to the census. They also indicate that a senior Census Bureau official and friend of Mr. Hofeller, Christa Jones, helped draft an explanation of that rationale, apparently for publication had the question been approved. [...] The most recent evidence surfaced on Monday, when the Justice Department turned over 26 documents from Ms. Jones’s files to plaintiffs in the main lawsuit that challenged the citizenship question.

How Trump Officials Cut The 2020 Census Short Amid The Pandemic (NPR, Sept, 18 2020)

Aug. 1: In an email discussion about presenting an accelerated census schedule to Ross, Christa Jones, chief of staff in the bureau's office of the director, urges including language in a slide deck to make clear that the bureau was "directed" to do that. "This is not our idea and we shouldn't have to own it," Jones writes.

So per the nom's reasoning, including undue weight on the event, as well as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E, delete seems appropriate for this article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Often high-level census bureau employees have well-cited publications or recognition as a fellow of a major statistical society allowing them to pass WP:PROF, but my searches didn't find anything like that in this case. And anyway the article is currently a WP:COATRACK for a single event rather than a balanced biography, so WP:BIO1E and WP:TNT also apply. As nominated, it also overplayed her position at the bureau: apparently she was actually "chief of staff to the bureau's deputy director", that is, the manager for some lower-level manager's personal staff, not someone in charge of all staff in the bureau. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Daniel (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Porn 'n Chicken[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No lasting notability after their fifteen minutes ended way back in 2001. Definitely fails WP:NFILM. Article has never had any viable third-party coverage of the club nor the movie since its expansion in 2005, with only Yale-related publications cited. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 09:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 09:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article indicates references to articles in the NYT and various other very reliable sources. Shouldn't this count? Also Google Books offers quite a few references, etc, etc. Also, the 1st Afd was a very clear keep and found the film notable (see template above, right) and I am inviting other users to check it. Keep and clean up.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Organizations, Sexuality and gender, Connecticut, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

....So that it was covered in a number of independent reliable secondary sources. Have you looked at the sources apart from TCM? The New York Times covered it...and the Daily Pennsylvanian, and The Daily Press, Variety, etc, etc. So non notable, how? The page mentions a few of these. Has any basic check been performed, here? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC) (this was a reply to a comment that's been removed; I leave it as the sources presented may be of use))[reply]

Aside from the massive torrent of press that this received back in 2000-2001, it continues to be referred to in the major media. The most recent reference in the New York Times is from 2015. "Yale Graduate Who Promoted CrossFit Ventures Is Arrested," New York Times, 21 May 2015:

″While at Yale, Mr. Newman gained a bit of notoriety for being a founding member of a group that called itself “Porn ‘N Chicken” and claimed to get together on Friday nights to watch pornographic movies and eat fried chicken. The group also announced plans to make a pornographic film of its own among the Yale library stacks featuring real students. The movie was never made, but Comedy Central made a cable television movie in 2002 based on the incident.

Mr. Newman wrote about his involvement with “Porn ‘N Chicken” on the blog on his website, which includes quotes from various news articles over the last decade that have called him a “Silicon Valley pro” and an “Internet elder statesmen.”

In a few seconds of checking I also see a 2007 discussion by ABC News. "Please Check Your Clothes at the Door," ABC News, 10 January 2007: "Also in the late 1990s, a secret society called "Porn 'n Chicken," met together to watch pornographic movies while eating fried chicken in the nude, sources tell ABCNEWS.com."

Porn 'n' Chicken, however ridiculous, probably has more notable references than half the pages on Wikipedia.Uucp (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wouldn't take too much stock in a 2005 AfD discussion, since notability thresholds were much different then, but it appears that this subject meets the WP:GNG due to independent WP:SIGCOV from multiple sources. In addition, the 2015 NYT article shows this topic meets WP:SUSTAINED. User:Let'srun 18:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, I think it's clear this will be kept, but if the folks who made the effort to dig up sources for the discussion wouldn't mind also helping fix up the article, that would be great. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind doing it. But anyone can do it, yourself included. Best. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Campbell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, Costa Rica, and Haiti. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article in The Guardian alone is enough to comply with the WP:GNG, and there are other reliable sources. For anyone willing to spend some time on improving our coverage of the diplomatic profession, which is important, instead of attacking it, this would be an easy article to improve significantly. Moonraker (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting deletion is not attacking a profession. The AfD process is a legitimate part of WP. LibStar (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is attacking a profession, but simply restating policy; people don't get a "pass" here for being ambassadors, we need sourcing about the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course the AfD process is legitimate, LibStar, but it is best pursued by people who do not come to it with an agenda. You have this long list on your user page, do you also have a list of diplomatic articles you have created or improved? Moonraker (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  that question is irrelevant to the notability of Sharon Campbell. LibStar (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moonraker, I can confirm that LibStar does in fact have an "agenda" which I've seen him following for some time: deleting articles which don't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. We sometimes disagree at AfDs but I'm glad he's doing this. For biographies of living people we have an additional duty of care to ensure notability and referencing. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find sources talking about the ambassador; source 4 from the Times is fine, but we need more than just an announcement of the appointment. Has the person done anything in their role the press wrote about? Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Sharon Campbell is a notable figure and the sources there in are credible and reliable like the times, gov.uk so instead of deleting it, just an improvement to it would be better. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.gov.uk is a primary source. LibStar (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete disregarding the gov.uk primary sources, the rest of the sources are mainly based on interviews. I know Wikipedia:Interviews is just an essay but I'm a bit wary of interviews as reliable sources, so leaning to delete here. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The Guardian article and this Tico Times article I just added to the list of refs:[9] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per AB's source above and The Guardian source. Whilst the Gov website is primary, the interviews also show notability in my opinion – if she was not notable, the would have likely not been conducted or published. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, no consensus. Giving this one more week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reliable secondary sources prove notability. Rublamb (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. The proposals to merge or redirect to Titles in medieval Wales cannot be currently implemented, as that article does not currently exist (although a draft does). I recommend restarting a merger or redirection discussion on the talk page once the target article exists and is stable. Sandstein 14:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King of Wales[edit]

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

There is really only one contender for the title of King of Wales and that is Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, although he was not called King of Wales in his lifetime. There are sources that refer to him thus. For instance [10]. So this page makes a subject where none exists. The information about Gruffydd ap Llywelyn is on his page and should be there. This page could redirect there as this was the only real contender for the title. Other UK home nations do not have pages describing the concept of a king of the nation, despite more clearly having kings (England and Scotland particularly). There is no encyclopaedic subject of King of Wales outside of Gruffyd ap Llywelyn. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify / KEEP. After a protracted debate for over 2 months, there has been no compromise as to the full potential of the article. The previous edition gave detailed information about the monarchs named in Brut y Tywysogion in list form. An adapted article using primary sources has been discussed (Talk:King of Wales#Missing King of Wales claimants) to create a prose paragraph style work listing Kings named rulers of Wales from the middle ages, however, the issue of mythology has been raised in regard of the listing of individuals bringing WP:RS into contention. I suggest in keeping a rewrite the article and using the existing listing of Gruffudd ap Llywelyn but adding a more detailed segment about the rulers prior to and after the one individual listed from a potential dozen Kings of Wales. You just have to look at the fellow Celtic nations' lists: List of legendary rulers of Cornwall, List of High Kings of Ireland and Legendary kings of Scotland to better understand the article's potential. Cltjames (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC) I think @Richard Keatinge: took the right initiative. As in, the bulk of the work about the King of Wales should be kept, but the title will be better explained with reference to the other medieval titles, e.g. Rex, Brenin, Princeps. Cltjames (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The list articles are not comparable to what we have here, and we have the comparable article in List of rulers in Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but this should be a disambiguation page. I don't think the argument about the other UK home nations makes sense, since we do have redirects with obvious targets for those. See King of England and King of Scotland. For this article we have a real problem since someone searching for "king of wales" probably isn't looking for the article on Gruffydd ap Llywelyn. A dab page with some (extremely minimal) explanations makes sense here. You'd probably want Prince of Wales linked in a hatnote. I don't think draftifying makes sense - if there hasn't been consensus in two months on the talk page, why would it transpire over six months of draftification? -- asilvering (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think creation of a DAB would be a sensible outcome. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "King of Wales title" or similar - focused on the historical use of the title rather than territorial rule of all Wales. Titus Gold (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cltjames if you want to create a page of fictional kings e.g Legendary Kings of Wales / Fictional Kings of Wales, that's a separate matter I think. This page should remain historical. Titus Gold (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "King of Wales title" or similar, since that is what the article is about. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has never really been a King of Wales title though. Gruffydd ap Llywelyn did not use it of himself. After him, Owain Gwynedd, who did not rule the whole polity, once described himself as "king of the Waleses" in a letter to the French king, but he did not do that consistently, and the letter was very much occasioned. It was not a title bestowed on him. Anyone looking to learn about "King of Wales" either wants to know about the princes or else about Gruffydd ap Llywelyn. There never was a title of King of Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not move. An article about a title can be at that title. Compare King of Kings or King of the Goths. The article should be about the title. The article currently says nothing about Orderic's reference to a rex Guallorum or to Rhys as rex Walensium. I found these in a few minutes of googling. I just think it needs a lot of work, but deletion can't accomplish that. Srnec (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orderic refers, it is presumed, retrospectively to Gruffudd ap Cynan. Rhys ap Gruffydd is on the page as it stands, called head of Wales on his death. Where are you finding the reference to rex Walensium? If the Robert of Torigny primary source collated in Monumenta Germaniae Historica we should note that this is not a title Rhys took for himself. He twice styled himself prince of the Welsh, and the reasons for that are discussed by, e.g. Turvey (2002) as being in direct opposition to the use of king. Turvey cites chronicler usage that retained "rex" but also the styling of Welsh rulers as "regulus", a use of the Latin diminuative in mockery of the "little kings". His theory, then is that the Welsh thus chose to style their rulers as princes. He says:

This accords well with the view that Rhys and his fellow rulers, at the behest of Henry II, set aside all pretensions to regal status in return for confirmation of their landholdings. It seems that during the twelfth century the native chroniclers were tending increasingly to acclaim only their greatest rulers brenin or rex and then only as an epithet of greatness to be dispensed at death as a mark of respect and for past deeds should they warrant titular distinction. By the thirteenth century this practice had ceased completely

Turvey, R. (2002) The Welsh Princes: The Native Rulers of Wales 1063-1283 Routledge.

Thus neither of these ruled the polity, and retrospective claims do not speak to a title. Also, where is the evidence in sources that (unlike King of Kings or King of the Goths) the term "King of Wales" has any notability apart from reference to Gruffydd ap Llywelyn? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What "polity"? There was no kingdom of Wales. But the title "King of Wales" existed nevertheless, both arrogated and attributed. How it was used, by and of whom, is a question best answered by this article. Rulership in medieval Wales would be a broader but equally valid topic. This article could be expanded and moved, but I see no good reason to nix it. There are enough sources that discuss the title "king of Wales/Waleses/the Welsh". For example, the paper "From Rex Wallie to Princeps Wallie" in The Medieval State: Essays Presented to James Campbell or "Gruffudd ap Cynan and the Medieval Welsh Polity" in Gruffudd ap Cynan: A Collaborative Biography. Srnec (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the lack of kingdom of Wales is the point. The title "King of Wales" did not exist in any unambiguous and meaningful way, because there was no kingdom of Wales, except arguably under one man for a brief period from 1057-1063. But the confusion of that period with other singular and occasioned descriptions of people who were not kings of any such kingdom, makes this article unworkable asis. If there was a king of Wales, it was Gruffudd. But you suggest we could used Rulership in medieval Wales. DeCausa, on the article talk page yesterday, suggested Titles of Welsh rulers. You are both quite right. A better article is possible in which we dispense with the attempts merely to list names of people that have at some point been called something, as though one thing is equivalent to another. The better article answers the question, and it is a very good question, "why did Wales have princes?" It would look at the development of the concept of Wales and the usage of a range of terms, and the influence of England in that development. (See also DeCausa's message on talk [11]). If we want to move this article and make it the basis of that, I do not mind. We just need to firm up the move target. I tend to think it is actually a different article, but I can see that starting from a base may be quicker than starting from scratch. This suggestion also has the very important policy argument behind it: we have good secondary sources that demonstrate notability for this subject. You provide some, and we have Turvey above and plenty more. This is not the case for an article on the King of Wales. No sources have been presented that demonstrate that this page, as it is, is notable. The sources are guiding us: Titles of Welsh rulers or Rulership in medieval Wales would be the encyclopaedic article here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited such sources. Deleting this article does not get us closer to an ideal article, but further. I think it is a completely mistaken assumption that "King of Wales" must mean what you take it to mean rather than whatever the primary sources that use it took it to mean. Srnec (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to King of Wales (title) as suggested above, to clarify that this is about the term/title, not specific historical rulers, with a top link to Gruffydd ap Llywelyn. Cortador (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ with no strong views on the naming. If you follow the link to Wales in this article, it takes you to Wales in the Middle Ages, where the lead is very short:
"Wales in the Middle Ages covers the history of the country that is now called Wales, from the departure of the Romans in the early fifth century to the annexation of Wales into the Kingdom of England in the early sixteenth century. This period of about 1,000 years saw the development of regional Welsh kingdoms, Celtic conflict with the Anglo-Saxons, reducing Celtic territories, and conflict between the Welsh and the Anglo-Normans from the 11th century."
Since this text explicitly refers to the kingdom of England and Welsh kingdoms, it's reasonable for a reader not well-versed in the history of the UK or Wales to want to know about the concept of kingship in Wales, a constituent country of the United Kingdom with a particularly rich history, and to understand if there has been a "King of Wales", and if so, who he might have been. This article is a useful general discussion of the concept, and an informative read. Elemimele (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with @Sirfurboy. The only rulers significantly associated with the title are Gruffydd ap Llywelyn and Owain Gwynedd, and in each case their articles are the most appropriate place to cover this. The use of the title could also be covered at Prince of Wales. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've never heard or read of Wales ever being a kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete per Sirfurboy and others. Separately, I support De Causa's (and, I think, Elemimele's) idea of a page on mediaeval Welsh titles, in which the information currently presented here might, subject to consensus, be very briefly mentioned. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to new page Titles in medieval Wales or similar), which I have boldly started - as a very preliminary basis - using some of the present text of King of Wales. On re-reading this AfD carefully, I believe that I see a potential consensus for such a page. Appropriate sources are available for the messy reality (thanks to https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/gfsymz/was_there_a_sense_of_hierarchy_to_medieval_welsh/).

I still find no encyclopedic use for a page that retrojects later concepts and claims onto un-systematized historical usage. Such an approach is suitable only for fringe websites and the like. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is easier to have a page to explain the concept, while simply stating that only Gruffydd ap Llywelyn had the title symbolically from modern historians like Davies. When a page refer to other titles, it becomes very confusing and we the reader don't even bother to click on it, as it more work for our brain. From the start, the page states that there was no kingdom and no political unity and was used only on a handful of occasions. Why not simply including in the current page the titles of King of the Welsh, Head of all Wales, etc and explain how these titles were used by Welsh rulers and explain why they were different, and maybe explain also why Wales had only princes.Academia45 (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not an encyclopedic topic in its own right, so redirect to Titles in medieval Wales. Llwyld (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, I think that keep is in favour, but like is being spoken about, King of Wales is not an encyclopedia topic because Wales was never officially a Kingdom. And that the titles range greatly between acknowledged Rex titular owners and Gruffudd ap Llywelyn who soley conquered Wales by warfare. Therefore, I believe the concept of creating a redirect and simply creating sub paragraphs, e.g. Rex Wallie (Brenin) King of Wales etc. would be a better idea with a sort of king list showing the title holders that @Titus Gold: produced in Talk:King of Wales. Are we on board to simply move the text from one article to another, and create a redirect. Again, to reiterate, I'm thinking King of Wales simple article is not enough bulk and could be better explained with references to other titles. Cltjames (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Titles in medieval Wales per above. Dank Jae 23:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
edit: article since been deleted, Keep per above instead. Dank Jae 16:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been draftified, now more appropriately at Draft:Titles in medieval Wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Keatinge (talk • contribs) 19:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you can't redirect to a draft, and no guarantee that the article would leave draft, so keep over a soft deletion. A merger could be discussed at a later time. Dank Jae 21:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am content with a redirect to Titles in medieval Wales too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Same, I am fine with a redirect to Titles in medieval Wales. Academia45 (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, I'm seeing a big divide and no consensus. We have Delete, Keep, Move and Redirect advocates all in about the same numbers and so far, the discussion has focused on the position of Wales as an entity, not rooted in any poicy guideiines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Titles in medieval Wales, per above. The current title is imprecise and unencyclopedic, and the topic itself + any disambiguation required can be covered in the redirect target page, which gives context to the title itself. sawyer / talk 07:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Liz - I am not sure that the equal numbers is quite right. I (delete) and Academia45 (keep) both stated we were content with a redirect to Titles in medieval Wales - a target that emerged during the discussion. Isn't there an emerging consensus for that? (6 !votes if you count me and Academia45) [edit conflict, now 7]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest, when I review these AFDs, I don't do a head count. I read all of the comments, the comments to the comments, the relevant policy pages, etc. and offer my impression of the totality of the discussion. Most admins don't include any remarks when they relist a discussion (and often don't say anything when they close the discussion, either) but I like to give a brief statement on where I think the discussion stands. But it's not uncommon for discussions to be closed before a relisting period ends, in fact, looking over relisted discussions is how I happened to see your comment. I haven't had any objections (so far) to my relisting comments but if they are seen as unhelpful, I might just let them be and not insert my point-of-view on the state of the debate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was not suggesting the relisting comments are unhelpful. Indeed, when you ask editors to focus on, e.g., the appropriate redirect target, or you focus on where the lack of consensus lies (e.g. between deletion or merge) the comments are very helpful. You asked for editors familiar with GEOLAND to comment once which was also very helpful. I was merely pointing out that in this comment, you say about the same numbers. Thus my comment. In any case the relist has precipitated A.D.Hope's comments, which are useful to the discussion, inasmuch as regardless of outcome, they indicate how discussion should proceed on Titles in medieval Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also fine about merging to Titles in medieval Wales and redirecting there; it's a practical solution. I'll strike my !vote keep. Elemimele (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Titles in medieval Wales. My "keep as dab" response above no longer applies since we now have an obvious retarget. -- asilvering (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose redirect (pending further discussion). I'm concerned that we haven't properly considered whether the topic of titles in medieval Wales is WP:NOTABLE enough to warrant an article; we should take a proper look at reliable sources to see how they approach it. Several articles already exist which could potentially cover titles, including History of Wales, Wales in the Middle Ages, Wales in the Early Middle Ages, Wales in the Late Middle Ages, and Prince of Wales. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If all these titles aren't notable enough, then a fortiori just one of them can't be. Would you agree to make the redirect from this article, pending possible consensus on further redirection to the articles that you mention? Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't agree; consensus should be gained before the redirect is created. I also disagree on notability, as one title being notable doesn't mean another is. 'Prince of Wales' is notable enough for an article, for example, but 'prince of Gwynedd' is covered by Kingdom of Gwynedd. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As well as prince of Wales as an article, there is clearly a notable topic on the Welsh princes. E.g. (Turvey, 2002) (quoted above). Note that this is a different, wider topic, looking at the princes of the various kingdoms. However the term prince developed from earlier usages of Brenin, Rhi, Rex. Hywel Dda was a king of Deheubarth, and also an important part of the story owing to the codifying of law. Davies (1994), for instance, covers that and is by no means alone in doing so. A reading of Turvey, or Davies (2001) (that is RR Davies, not J Davies) would, for instance, demonstrate that an article on a development of titles in medieval Wales is notable and distinct from a prince of Wales article (which is properly about that specific title). One could argue over the naming (always!) but I believe such an article is clearly notable based on not just these sources, but many more. Indeed, One thing that we should do is seek to restrict it so that we don't shoehorn in the likes of (Carr, 2017). But this also demonstrates that the study of the development of titles is an academic one and notable.

You also suggest the history of Wales articles as potential targets. Those articles are on my todo list (in the "one day" category) because they are a mess owing to the indiscriminate copy/paste of material from one to another so they are highly duplicated. The idea of them is that they drill down in detail so that the various middle ages articles pick out detail from the more general history of Wales article. At the moment they don't. They are, as I say, full of copy/pastes. Assuming they were fixed, they would be a poor target for this material. The individual articles would be too focussed on their target periods, so the discussion would need to be in the general History of Wales. But what is envisaged here is too detailed for the general history, so this new article would sit in the hierarchy as detail pointed to by the parent history article. Indeed, as topical history, it would sit better than divvying up the history along (sometimes arbitrary) dates.

The one thing that does not fit anywhere in that hierarchy, of course, is a "king of Wales" article - for all the reasons above. That would be ahistorical.

Carr A.D. (2017) The Gentry of North Wales in the Later Middle Ages. Cardiff: University of Wales.
Davies, J. (1994) A History of Wales. London: Penguin.
Davies, R.R. (2001) Age of Conquest Wales 1063-1415. Oxford:OUP.
Turvey, R. (2002) The Welsh Princes: The Native Rulers of Wales 1063-1283 Routledge.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For now I'm going to stand by my original suggestion of merging the relevant parts of this article with Gruffudd ap Llywelyn and Owain Gwynedd and deleting the remainder. It solves the immediate issue of this article's topic not being encyclopaedic. I'm not convinced that Turvey, Davies, and Davies prove the notability of medieval Welsh titles as a distinct topic; having had a look through each they mention titles as part of wider discussions of Welsh leadership, and it would be sensible for us to adopt the same approach.

There's clearly a wider issue with the group of articles on Welsh history being badly organised, as you note, but it's beyond the scope of this deletion discussion to address. My preference would be to perform the merger/deletion here and then open a new discussion at WP:WALES about the general structure and content of the Welsh history articles. That would also be a better place to discuss a potential 'medieval Welsh leadership (and titles)' article. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good points here, thanks. I have followed A.D.Hope's suggestion and merged the relevant bits of this article into Gruffudd ap Llywelyn and Owain Gwynedd, and I would support redirecting this article to Gruffudd ap Llywelyn. For further discussion elsewhere I suggest improvements to Titles in medieval Wales per Sirfurboy above, and I also support reorganization of the articles on Welsh history per A.D.Hope. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding sooner, Richard. I appreciate the work you've put in to take action on the suggestions here and see how they work in practice, as that's often the hardest part! Given 'Titles in medieval Wales' is now a draft I would suggest opening any discussions at WP:WALES or similar, just because it's a more visible space. All the best A.D.Hope (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete, whichever expunges this from the project most easierly. It is an ahistorical concept; it was almost never used, and was never considered representative of Wales the political entity. I'm sure either Geraldus or the 1533 Act would have jumped on it had it ever been anything close to recognisable. ——Serial 14:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"King of Wales", "King of the Waleses", "King of the Welsh"—all titles you can find in Latin in contemporary sources. What is ahistorical about it? I think a lot of modern readers are reading a "concept" into it that just isn't there. Srnec (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove somehow - The Latin rex is occasionally used for Welsh princes, but I do not think that justifies having this article. My preference would be redirecting or merging to an article on the medieval princes of Wales, since the title normally used in English is prince. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Daniel (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zedned[edit]

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

The subject is non-notable. The topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Further, when considering fulfilment of WP:NBAND criteria, there is no evidence per my WP:BEFORE that any are met. WP:BADCHARTS applies to the claim that the band has charted. —Alalch E. 06:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. —Alalch E. 06:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with the nominator; I am unable to find anything proving notability, whether via google searches or via the article references. ResonantDis_tortion 12:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't fid anything that might convey notability. Very promotional in tone. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Found nothing additional myself. Also BLARed Zedned (album) on the same grounds just now. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Synergos[edit]

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

Notability. google searches for "Synergos" after excluding various websites named "Synergos" (the search prompt I ended up using was "synergos" -synergos.org -synergoscompanies.com -synergoscounseling.com -synergoshealth.com -synergosholdings.com -network.synergos.org -synergos-tech.com -experience.synergos.org -synergosamc.com -synergostech.com -synergosadvice.com -synergos.biz -synergosconsulting.net -synergosvc.com -synergos.ph) produced few sources that would meet Wikipedia's standards for sources, beyond some puff pieces highlighting the supposed exclusivity of Synergos' "Global Philanthropy Circle." The page was created by the Communications Director for Synergos by their own admission (see the article's talk page), so one wouldn't even be able to argue that the organisation was at least notable enough for some Wikipedian to have created it. I recognise that debates over notability, COI, etc have occurred in the past, but disagree on the consensus that was apparently reached at the time. As far as I can tell this is the first time the page has been nominated for deletion outright. CongealedBox (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. AllyD (talk) 08:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Adding a second Findsources for Global Philanthropy Circle, which can be seen, for example, receiving Hewlett Foundation grants [12] (not suggesting inherited notability though, but may be useful for this AfD). AllyD (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imaste[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. I am unable to find any news coverage about this company. The only citation is their own company website. I am not sure how it got away for so long. Jupiteralien (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Spain. Jupiteralien (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I assumed that Jupiteralian saying they were "unable to find any news coverage" was understandable hyperbole, but was not at all prepared for Google to tell me "Your search - imaste - did not match any news results."

CongealedBox (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This 2012 press release covers the firm's acquisition by ON24, also this El Confidencial item. These announcements are insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH on the present article, and it isn't mentioned in the ON24 article so I think some independent evidence that the acquisition was significant would be needed to recommend any level of merge and redirect as not being WP:UNDUE. AllyD (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability, insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources, and no media interest int he topic. Also read more like promotion. Rodgers V (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spokil[edit]

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

Obscure constructed language that lacks WP:SIGCOV DirtyHarry991 (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and France. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original page is very likely almost entirely original research. The fact that the article itself says the following: "Spokil never gained much support, however, and nowadays is largely forgotten" is not a great sign vis-à-vis its notability, either.
CongealedBox (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. I find that the arguments of those citing GEOLAND have been adequately countered by those supporting deletion, and there is enough support for deletion here for a consensus to exist. Daniel (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avra, Pima County, Arizona[edit]

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

Dubiously meets the SNG GEOLAND (depending what counts as legal recognition) but doesn't meet the GNG (no SIG COV through google or newspaper). Since it doesn't meet GNG and is an undue weight on a parcel of land, this article does not have a place on wikipedia. See Talk:Notability for recent discussion in this favor. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since it appears to meet WP:GEOLAND, it's a keep. Please link to the discussion to the contrary. Greenman (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of the known unreliable GNIS and its regurgitator hometownlocator? That's pretty poor source review. Uncle G (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt meet GNG. So there cannot be an article of it. SNG is a shortcut for GNG but if it is shown through absence of source it doesn't meet GNG, then the article must be delete, or else violates it verifiability and What Wikipedia is not बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's saddening to see Mrs LaVera Lacey's lonesome and short-lived 1932—1933 post office being immortalized as a "populated place" by Wikipedia editors when the actual populated place that was there was Camp Pima at Tucson Mountain Park. The one that's in multiple histories of the place, such as Clemensen 1986 and the Arcadia Publishing books (Ascarza 2010 and Audretsch & Hunt 2014). Uncle G (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: The sources provided are junk (GNIS, a GNIS regurgitator, and a trivial mention). ~~I only searched news articles,~~ (NB: further search of books and news added nothing), and I found lots of references to an Avra Valley (seems there was a heated controversy over water rights there back in the late 60s), but not much of it as a "community". There is this: [13], a short-lived column that ran for a time in 1932, but I consider pieces like that to be trivial mentions (such-and-such church had a potluck, the local grange voted to oust Bubba Hunchsack). Surely people lived there and it was an informally recognized "community" but I can't really see anything approaching significant secondary coverage. But it's more than we have for a lot of these dots on maps who have articles thanks to GNIS, so I could be convinced to change my mind. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- We have Avra Valley and Avra Valley, Arizona, note. They aren't this place. This place is at a crossroads of what used to be Avra Road (but was rebuilt by Pima County as Sandario Road some time after 1975 according to a construction permit that Google Books turned up) and Picture Rocks Road. A dot appears on maps from 1934 onwards, because it's the 1932 post office that is mentioned in Barnes & Granger 1960, p. 259. What also appears on those maps at that same crossroads is the Rancho de Esperanza and the Camp Pima CCC camp that has loads of easy to find historical documentation, which gives us a lot more than is at Saguaro National Park#History, given that Tucson Mountain Park was originally a separate thing established by Pima County, not the federal government, in 1929.^[1]^[2] One has really to dig to find Mrs Lacey's post office anywhere. Like Hanwell Park there's a hugely notable thing hiding behind a dot on a map and a bad article.
  Personally, I won't shed a single tear over this article being gone. But I think that it's a saddening shame that the database importers hid the hugely notable thing that was actually at the crossroads from us with this dren.
  Uncle G (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

references

References

^ Larson & Ascarza 2010, p. 11.
^ Devine 2015, p. 69.

Barnes, Will Croft; Granger, Byrd H. (1960). "Avra Valley". Arizona Place Names (2nd ed.). University of Arizona Press. ISBN 9780816500093.
Audretsch, Robert W.; Hunt, Sharon E. (2014). The Civilian Conservation Corps in Arizona. Images of America. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9781467130974.
Ascarza, William (2010). Tucson Mountains. Images of America. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9780738579238.
Clemensen, A. Berle (1986). "Description and Evaluation of Historical Resources". Cattle, Copper, and Cactus: The History of Saguaro National Monument, Arizona. United States National Park Service.
Saguaro Environmental Assessment, General Management Plan. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1987. OL 17718812M.
Devine, David (2015). Tucson: A History of the Old Pueblo from the 1854 Gadsden Purchase. McFarland. ISBN 9781476614601.
Larson, Peggy Pickering; Ascarza, William (2010). Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. Images of America. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9780738586717.

Keep - passes WP:GEOLAND.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. From WP:GEOLAND,
  The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation.
  Yet those are the only sources. बिनोद थारू (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merely appearing as a locality in a geographical database -- especially one that is unreliable -- does not constitute a GEOLAND pass, and even if it did that does not mean the presumption of notability that GEOLAND affords is irrebuttable. The utter lack of sourcing to support this entry is clear evidence that it is not sufficiently documented for us to solidify it on the internet as real place.

JoelleJay (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pyle USA[edit]

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

I don't see it being notable. Article is a stub, very few relevant reliable sources mention the company or its products. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 05:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, Television, Companies, Technology, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. This is clearly a marginal case with arguments both for and against deleting the article, with no side clearly having the upper hand. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Gail Trimble[edit]

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

Does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The main publications mentioned on the page are an unpublished book (which has been such for 13 years) and contributions to the OCD (an encyclopedia with 100s of contributors). She does not hold a named professorship or similar. The TV and radio appearances are routine. The other possible basis for notability is an appearance on University Challenge, which is WP:BLP1E. Previous deletion discussions have noted the BLP1E point, but that 1E seems to have seemed more significant at the time; it is now very obscure (she is currently listed on the University Challenge page as notable on account of her status as an academic... but as stated, she doesn't meet WP's standard for academic notability). Furius (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Dr. Trimble is "Associate Professor in Classical Languages and Literature" at Oxford University as well as "Brown Fellow and Tutor in Classics". I searched and found no one else was a "Brown Fellow" at Oxford. (However, there is a separate "Diana Brown Fellow" in mathematics). Reading the list of fellows for her college, Trinity College, this appears to be a named position. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability (academics) - specific criterion #5.b addresses named chairs; this notability provision only applies to full professors. Dr. Trimble is an associate professor. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Radio, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Her two appearances on heavyweight radio show In Our Time contribute to notability under #7 of WP:NPROF, and the University Challenge coverage continued well beyond the one event, with references like this and this (paywalled, can't read in full) showing that she received ongoing coverage. Classicists publish slowly, by the nature of their field. PamD 09:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 7 of NPROF: "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" which may be met if "the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." OR "the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study." When one of the options is to have authored several books, I don't think appearing as one of three speakers on a 45-minute radio show with over 1,000 episodes reaches this threshold. "Classicists publish slowly" does not exclude them from notability requirements. Not to have published a book 13 years after the doctorate is quite extraordinary.

As for the coverage that you mention, this is still part of that one event - it could all be covered in University Challenge 2008–09 and University Challenge, which would also allow it to be better placed in context. Furius (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cherwell is the student newspaper of her alma mater; per consensus such papers are not wiki-independent of their schools and so do not count towards notability any more than alumni newsletters would. The extent of her mention there is just one clause in one sentence so definitely doesn't demonstrate SUSTAINED coverage anyway. The Telegraph piece has just 2ish sentences on her directly so doesn't count either. NPROF C7 requires far more widespread and frequent instances of serving as an expert in lay media. JoelleJay (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While her academic career seems only marginally notable, and individual quiz show appearances would not seem to be, she is clearly not notable for "one event", but seems to have been a regular panelist on two season-long programs, as well as a guest panelist on various quiz and academic programs on both television and radio. Her academic posts in addition to this seem to me to be enough to establish notability. This is not someone who's only known for one thing, but for a number of different things, several of which have brought her to public attention, as well as establishing at least an arguable degree of academic notability; it does not seem reasonable to assert that she is not notable solely because none of the individual things she's done might be sufficiently notable to justify an article by themselves. P Aculeius (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BLP1E. Wealth of coverage from University Challenge, not a low-profile individual. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hameltion, BLP1E doesn't mean an individual can be notable for a single event if they are non-low-profile; WP:SUSTAINED applies to all pages so there would have to be demonstrable coverage over a wider period that does not just regurgitate the same content generated at the time of the event. BLP1E is mostly meant to decide whether an article should be made on a person or on the event associated with them when BOTH would be valid pages, and since "Gail Trimble's appearance on UC" is clearly not notable as an event the "low-profile" BLP1E criterion is irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but I see sustained coverage over the years in The Times (cumulatively more than mentions), BBC, and student newspapers (for what those may be worth). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mentions don't contribute to NBASIC at all, though, no matter how many of them there are. They are not cumulative. And student newspapers are explicitly excluded from counting toward notability. The BBC article doesn't provide any further coverage of her, it just repeats what was said at the time. Lowering our thresholds for notability to include "single event + some later passing mentions" would mean thousands of reality show contestants would be eligible for articles. But we just don't do that, even for many of the million-dollar winners of top reality shows like Survivor -- see the uncontroversial deletions/redirections of Tina Wesson (won the second season of Survivor and got to top 4 in 27th season; sourcing included [14][15] along with contemporary coverage of seasons 2 and 27), Brian Heidik (won 5th season, also acted in multiple TV shows, non-contemporary coverage includes discussion on several pages in a book), Chris Daugherty (won season 9, non-contemporary coverage includes an academic work, a profile 8 years later, a story run in WaPo about him malingering, etc.), Bob Crowley (oldest winner), and on and on (and that's not even including all the "Where are they now?" pieces that provide lengthy blurbs). What makes the coverage of a college quiz show contestant so much more important to document? It's not like she's the only person in reality TV who went on to become a professor. As her claim to notability is entirely dependent on her UC appearances, having a policy-compliant WP article (i.e. focused on what is covered in IRS sources) will just be overemphasizing a part of her life that probably is only a minor aspect to her at this point. JoelleJay (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero evidence of notability through NPROF (appearing on IOT is not unusual for academics in the area and would be considered one piece of evidence towards C7, but the criterion requires much more widespread acknowledgement of expertise). The coverage of her UC appearance is not sufficient to overcome the need for WP:SUSTAINED coverage; the only independent pieces published after 2009 are a BBC "Where are they now" blurb on 10 April 2017 and a clearly non-intellectually-independent derivative blurb in another "Where are they now" series in the Telegraph. Neither provides any additional commentary on her than what was said in 2009, so they do not have any weight. JoelleJay (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to be that she's only notable for appearing on a television program in 2009; but this wasn't a one-time appearance; rather it was a season-long one as her team was the winner of that series. She also appeared as part of another team on another program in 2017 and 2018, and made other appearances—some of them academic or scholarly, rather than on quiz shows—in 2020, 2021, and 2022, indicating non-trivial expertise in her field. Essentially you're arguing that she can't be notable because none of the individual things she's done are sufficiently notable, but by that logic we'd be eliminating a lot of scholars and academics, to say nothing of entertainers, who may be familiar to the public for a number of minor things, but not for a single major event. That simply isn't a reasonable standard. P Aculeius (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have articles on every single Survivor or Bachelor contestant, even though those get waaaaaaaaaay more coverage for a longer period of time. This is because they fail SUSTAINED. Appearing on televised quiz shows does not mean anything unless it corresponds to significant secondary independent coverage that extends well beyond the time of those events (and it offers zero weight towards academic notability per NPROF 2c). Essentially you're arguing that she can't be notable because none of the individual things she's done are sufficiently notable, but by that logic we'd be eliminating a lot of scholars and academics, to say nothing of entertainers, who may be familiar to the public for a number of minor things, but not for a single major event.This is in fact explicitly the standard we have for GNG. It does not matter how important an aspect or event associated with a person is; if the coverage is not significant, independent, secondary, and reliable it does not count towards GNG. It is 100% about the coverage, not about what someone has done. These notability criteria aren't additive; non-significant coverage at some later date can't just be added to SUSTAINED-failing coverage to meet GNG (or even NBASIC), else we would have AfD-proof articles on every reality TV contestant ever. So that leaves the only avenue for notability as NPROF C7, but the requirements are very clear that merely providing an expert opinion occasionally -- even in high-profile venues -- does not equate to a C7 pass. You also cannot combine "halfway to achieving GNG" and "halfway to achieving NPROF C7" to reach notability because the criteria for one is invalid for the other so neither GNG nor NPROF can be met. JoelleJay (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing notability with verifiability. Every fact that makes a topic notable must be verifiable, but the individual facts that go toward demonstrating notability do not each have to be sufficiently notable to justify a stand-alone article. A topic that is the subject of ongoing attention in reliable sources over a period of years will generally be notable, even if it can be argued that none of those items is independently notable. You can't simply kick out each item as insufficiently notable, and then claim that there's nothing to demonstrate notability.

You're quite correct that not every game show contestant is notable—but that's a far cry from claiming that no game show contestants are notable, or that nobody who came to public attention due to participation in a game show is notable. And as several people have pointed out, not only has the subject of this discussion been highly visible across multiple programs over a term of several years, but she's also appeared as a subject-matter expert on scholarly topics on other radio and television programs, in addition to holding an academic position at a very prestigious university, and contributing toward notable works of scholarship. Maybe no one thing she's done is all that notable, but all of these things combined seem sufficient to consider the subject notable. P Aculeius (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Others have cited sustained coverage of the years, and yes, a lot of it is of the "where are they now?" variety, but to my mind the coverage meets the requirements of WP:BASIC and she also has a (yes, marginally) notable academic career. This Guardian article sums it up for me by citing her as "[a]mong the most notable female contestants" on University Challenge. While it's not a straightforward case, I would say keep, for similar reasons to those given by P Aculeius. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to also note that the length of time of her appearance on University Challenge weighed into my decision-making. She received extensive coverage over this time in 2009 that continued in the following years; I don't see this as being a WP:BIO1E or WP:BLP1E situation. This is not a case where "little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography". Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case then should the article be refocused? Only her academic career, not University challenge is mentioned in the lead, but editors seem to be finding the latter to be the source of her notability. Furius (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; the lead was pretty inadequate really. I've had a stab at expanding it. (Not presupposing the outcome of this discussion, no hard feelings obviously if it the consensus ends up being to delete.) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This interpretation would mean every person on the top two teams of a televised reality program is notable, which is absolutely not the case. Survivor and The Bachelor garner millions more viewers and season-long coverage of individuals than UC, but we do not have articles on every single contestant because they do not overcome the requirements for SUSTAINED. Even the ones that get interviews or become panelists on other shows later on aren't considered notable unless there is substantial secondary coverage accompanying them. JoelleJay (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is TOOSOON for passing NPROF or NAUTHOR, her book as 5 citations and her academic career is not yet at a point where she would pass NPROF. She is early career so this may change later. Appearing on a quiz show in 2009 should not make her notable either. --hroest 20:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am basing this on the existence of adequate coverage in reliable secondary sources as a game show contestant and related ongoing activities, not as an academic. There is also a list of potential sources on the article's talk page, including major newspapers and the BBC. While most of the significant coverage has some age, WP:NOTTEMPORARY specifically says that coverage does not need to be ongoing. Also, this is not someone noted for a single event, as her related quiz/gameshow career has been ongoing. I also note that the decision was to keep this article in two prior AfD. Rublamb (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While coverage does not need to be ongoing, it does need to be significant well beyond the time surrounding a single event. What SIGCOV exists past 2009? JoelleJay (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 2009 University Challenge coverage involved a series of events, not a single event, and were still being discussed in 2016 [16], in 2017 [17][18], in 2018 [19], in 202 [20], and in 2021 [21]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: based on amount of coverage, subject meets WP:BASIC criteria, as it states that multiple independent citations can be combined to show notability. Subject also possibly meets WP:ENT due to being on multiple TV game shows.Royal88888 (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per arguments of Chocmilk03, Rublamb, and others. She clearly passes WP:BASIC for the University Challenge coverage, her subsequent academic career and media appearences means that she isn't a low profile individual, and notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the UC coverage does not pass WP:SUSTAINED and therefore fails NOTNEWS. Should we have articles on every single reality TV contestant just because there is coverage of them during the season they appear in? JoelleJay (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: WP:SUSTAINED says "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." In this situation, she is evidently not a low-profile individual, both due to her academic career and subsequent appearances on quiz shows. @Jonathan A Jones has cited some of the ongoing news coverage. It's true that some of these mentions are passing, such as [22], but they provide evidence (to my mind) that she continues to be notable.

I've also been thinking about why we have the notability rules. There's enough significant coverage of Trimble in reliable sources that a whole article can be written, that it isn't based on random gossip, that an article can be fair and balanced and not based on original research or a single source. She is of enduring notability in a way that many reality show contestants aren't. WP:NOTWHOSWHO, but coverage of Trimble goes beyond a single event, in my view. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 2009 University Challenge coverage involved a series of events, not a single event, and were still being discussed in 2016 [23], in 2017 [24][25], in 2018 [26], in 2020 [27], and in 2021 [28]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are all extremely brief passing mentions. The 2020 mention, for example, is nothing more than a link back to a 2009 article by the same newspaper. Everything to do with it could be covered and contextualised better in University Challenge 2008–09 Furius (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BASIC with sources presented by Jonathan Jones. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BASIC, WP:SUSTAINED. Note that the examples of "passing mentions" at WP:BIO are ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University"). Other examples of trivial coverage include a simple directory entry, a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot.
Sufficient sources presented above provide coverage that far surpasses such examples, providing SIGCOV. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. —siro χ o 08:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No, this person does not qualify as notable under WP:NPROF. Those TV appearances are not sufficient for other notability. The mentions in a number of those sources do not convey independent notability either. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. For the record, article creators can contribute to AfD's as readily as any other editor. Daniel (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cop slide[edit]

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

A playground slide that was popularized due to a viral video of a police officer sliding down it. I believe that the video is worthy of a mention in a list of viral videos or internet memes or in the Boston City Hall Plaza article, maybe even some coverage about the slide itself as well in there for the consequences that happened because of the video, but not a whole article for the slide, which is really only notable for one relatively small and unusual event and had a bunch of other small events occur afterwards as a result. It's still just a single component of a playground structure. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, United States of America, and Massachusetts. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'd take issue with the assertion that it was a "relatively small" event due to the media attention it recieved from a respectable number of large pop culture magazines and websites as cited in the article, even though these were not the biggest broadsheet newspapers. I may be incorrect, but the fact that it is "unusual" is more of a reason to keep it up, no? I'd also argue that the article name of "cop slide" refers to the phenomenon as a whole, not just the slide, and so it would lack its whole context if relegated to other articles, with a lot of information about this phenomenon being deemed out of scope there. Keep in mind that I created the article, so I'm happy to be corrected! JamJamSvn (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JamJamSvn: I'm quite sure that an article's creator cannot cast a vote on an AFD though they still can contribute to the discussion.

An article's topic being "unusual" doesn't really dictate whether an article should be kept or deleted. The decision is made based on the article's merits or how notable the topic is. I think that this phenomenon is notable enough that it could be incorporated within an article about viral videos or internet memes, but not enough to warrant its own article because it still a relatively unremarkable event. Viral videos are created on a daily basis and will inevitably receive coverage or have other events that happen as a result, but they only become notable enough for their own articles when the events that occur as a result could be notable by themselves too.

Take for example, Latarian Milton. He received widespread coverage because he took his grandmother's car on a joyride as a kid, which was something basically unheard of at the time. All the other crimes or events he was involved in subsequently were covered, but only because he was involved in an event before, not because the new events were notable. Assault cases in their own right aren't typically notable and don't make the people involved in them notable, so that, in the scope of Wikipedia, doesn't produce further notability for the person who was involved in a single notable event prior to it.

In the case of the "cop slide", it's a police officer who slid down a slide and was injured while doing so, and it just so happened to be recorded and went viral as a result. The following events, like the failed lawsuit against the city after a woman went down the slide and was injured and the removal of the slide, are not notable in their own right, and only received coverage because they were connected to the "cop slide" video, just like the Latarian Milton situation. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry! Please disregard my false vote. Thanks for the clarification also. JamJamSvn (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WaddlesJP13 do you have a policy citation for that? I can't find anything like it at WP:Deletion process or WP:AFD or Admin deletion guidelines.

@JamJamSvn note that the proper vote is keep, not oppose. Oblivy (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy: I don't know about a policy to cite which is why I'm only speculating. If I knew for sure, I would have cited one, but I'm only making a positive guess. My assumption is based on the fact that I have seen discussions where the creator had their voted to keep their own article struck through. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said you were "quite sure [they] cannot" without any other hedging language. Even if (in some dialects) quite < very, it's still a pretty definitive statement. I can't remember seeing instances of an article creator's vote getting struck unless they were a sock or similar.

Unless there's a policy against it, anyone gets to vote at an AfD. The closing admin can give the votes their proper weight. Oblivy (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I mean, it passes the General Notability Guideline, and it doesn't feel like the kind of article that causes problems (for example, it's neither a walled garden nor does it lack citations. It's a well-put-together article that might not have a huge number of hits in a few years, but here's the daily page views for several featured articles, including one of mine: [29]

Cop slide has dozens of times more views than any of them, so even if it becomes more obscure, it's likely to still have a long period of decent interest, after which it'll be a useful documentation of the internet of this era.

Looking at the event notability, it has diversity of sources - just the ones in the article include British and American sources, and date across 2 months (Although most are in August), which is more than a brief news cycle, and even ignoring the outlier, there's a good two weeks of coverage and updates, which is beyond a single news cycle. And, again, I'm only looking at the reference section of this article. The physicist report on the slide also provides that later depth and reanalysis that WP:EVENT says is a good sign of notability.

In short, this seems to be notable. It's not the kind of thing I'd think to write on, but then, we have passionate editors for hurricanes, U.S. roads, and obscure Victorian plays (that one's me). Internet memes aren't the worst choice. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.6% of all FPs.} 05:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I will admit I found the video very funny when I saw it a while back, and immediately knew what it was from the name of the article. Before reading the article I was skeptical as to whether it should be an article, yet now that I read it I am baffled by how wide the coverage on this has been. City hall dealing with and influx of people making a pilgrimage to the site of where the police officer came out of the police officer dispensing machine. Scientists being interviewed on why it happened. All thoroughly documented. The slide itself as a physical structure might not be notable, but the events surrounding it certainly are. The article is more about the latter. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given by @Adam Cuerden and @Acebulf, enough notability shown through diverse and somewhat sustained press coverage and reports of real-world notoriety.

Acebulf's comments notwithstanding I wonder if the proper article subject isn't the slide itself. Something perhaps to consider if the article gets kept. Oblivy (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. Daniel (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nasiba Tursunova[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. The subject seemingly made one appearance for her national team. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, nor is there any indication of notability. All I found were passing mentions such as 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Uzbekistan. JTtheOG (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Ivory Coast women's international footballers. Daniel (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Sidibé (footballer)[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Ivory Coast women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Not to be confused with the volleyball player of the same name. JTtheOG (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Ivory Coast. JTtheOG (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. With respect to this AfD, there is no consensus. With respect to the WP:RUSUKR editing restriction, it allows but does not mandate deletion to enforce it, leaving this up to administrators. I decline to delete the article in application of this sanction at this time, since the article does not appear to have been created with disruptive purpose or effect. Other admins remain free to come to a different conclusion. Sandstein 14:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:WORDISSUBJECT. This slogan, which is only notable because Joe Biden said it twice in 2022, does not have enough in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to merit its own article. Not every sentence uttered by an American president that gets some attention in the media deserves an article of its own. At best we could merge this to Joe_Biden#Aid_to_Ukraine. SparklyNights (t) 21:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Politics, Russia, Ukraine, and United States of America. SparklyNights (t) 21:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is not a notable slogan. I found hits on Biden's speech as a whole, but they do not take this slogan out of context without regards to the rest of the speech. It bears no weight on the aid to Ukraine section either as I feel this one saying about specific foreign policy does not garner enough WP:SIGCOV. If it were a continuing slogan, I could understand. Conyo14 (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear colleague, this statement is a continuing slogan, which can be traced through the sources in the article from at least January 2022 to November 4, 2023 Gornos (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Colleagues. This statement is not randomly dropped words. This is the official position of the United States and all NATO countries. To support this, I added links in the article to the words of Olaf Scholz and Jens Stoltenberg. Gornos (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A procedural note: the author has made an attempt to canvass the Ukrainian Wikipedia community to defend this article from deletion. See screenshot in Ukrainian (translatable with something like Google Lens if needed). stjn 23:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing is to be frowned on, but the irony is we're on the cusp of deleting this article about Ukraine...without Ukraine.😀 BBQboffin^{grill me} 21:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources are either primary or not independent (i.e. by Biden himself), or passing mentions. Nothing else found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From author. Dear Colleagues, thank you all for your constructive criticism. It inspired me to improve the article: analytical sources have been added (Atlantic Council), the text is structured into different sections: Meaning, Before 02/24/22, After 02/24/22. Statements by representatives of Ukraine, Western countries and NATO are also structured. Please look again and re-evaluate the work Gornos (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess changes made to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect and merge into Foreign policy of Ukraine. I think there's a misunderstanding of the phrase: this is Ukraine's official position on negotiations regarding the Russo-Ukrainian war, and Western nations largely have decided to respect this position. I don't think Joe_Biden#Aid_to_Ukraine would be an appropriate redirect since, according to the article's own content, this phrase didn't originate with Biden (Blinken himself said it before Biden did) and it was only popularized by his speech. That said, the content of this article would fit in really well into the foreign policy article. Also, just wanted to say awesome work with the article Gornos! Many thanks for adding in all the additional content, it definitely helps. Best, Dan the Animator 06:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment, colleague. However, I must note that the phrase under discussion is not a purely Ukrainian negotiating position. Ukraine has not been conducting any negotiations with Russia since the spring of 2022, and since September 30, 2022, it has officially refused to conduct any negotiations with its leader Putin. The discussed principle “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” is a position voiced primarily by Ukraine’s allies in this war. Therefore, I don’t know how correct it will be to combine this text with an article on the foreign policy of Ukraine. I would be glad to hear different opinions from experienced colleagues. Gornos (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point and yes, Western allies definitely do use it more than Ukraine itself. That said, I still think it belongs on the foreign policy article given that article also covers relations between NATO and Ukraine plus the US-Ukraine relationship. If not a completely separate section, the content of "Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine" could be split up into the different existing sections of the foreign policy article (particularly the Ukraine–United States relations & Participation in international organizations sections). In any case, I'd also be interested to hear other thoughts on the subject. Best, Dan the Animator 19:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the nom, many sources have been added showing repeated usage by the US president (May 2022 and November 2022), the German chancellor (June 2022), the UN secretary general (July 2023), and it popped up again at the August 2023 peace conference in Saudi Arabia. There is WP:SIGCOV that is WP:SUSTAINED and the best presentation of the material (now 9500 bytes) is to have a standalone article on the subject so the WP:READER has all of it in one place. BBQboffin^{grill me} 20:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve/expand. There is a highly notable controversy behind it. The promise ("Nothing about Ukraine...") was repeatedly stated by several members of US administration, but apparently violated by very same administration [30],[31]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like WP:SYNTH. Also could have been speedily deleted as article was created by non-extended confirmed editor due to WP:RUSUKR. Mellk (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks more like WP:ATTP: Delete: Creator has made only 27 edits so far. –NewbieHater (talk), 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC). If anyone's still wondering why we have a hard time attracting and retaining new volunteer editors, just look at the WP:BITE marks on Gornos' back. Then go look at the article he's worked hard to improve. If this gets deleted because the page creator was a "non-extended confirmed editor" I'll put it back in mainspace so it can be judged on its merits. BBQboffin^{grill me} 06:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editors that are not extended-confirmed cannot make edits or create articles about Russia-Ukraine war, period. This is not my problem. I have already given my reason for deletion. There is no evidence of some kind of notable "foreign policy principle" called "Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine" that deserves a standalone article. It is not our role to create articles using original research because it is mentioned in some speeches, though it might make sense to mention in foreign policy of Ukraine. Mellk (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence?! That the principle is cited by both Ukrainian authorities and Ukrainian allies (Biden, Sholtz, Stoltenberg) is the evidence, and there are direct quotes in the article. "Nothing about us without us" (Nihil de nobis, sine nobis) is the only potential WP:SYNTH issue I see, but given how that phrase originated from the same part of the world (Poland, 16th Century), on hearing "Nothing about X without X" the connection of the two phrases becomes obvious: WP:SKYBLUE. BBQboffin^{grill me} 04:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need reliable secondary sources for that. I only see a passing mention about the phrase itself in the Atlantic Council blog article but this is not a good source anyway. The other sources are either primary sources or the phrase simply appears in a quote, from what I can see. There are also a lot of phrases that Russian officials use for propaganda purposes, but that does not mean we should make an article for each phrase just because it appears in quotes. Mellk (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 00:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bosut (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Prod declined, but by adding WP:PTMs, which I reverted now. Multiple things are named after Bosut, but aren't referred to as simply Bosut themselves. The hatnote already covers the ambiguity between the river and the village otherwise. Joy (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Joy (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly a WP:ONEOTHER dab. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several other valid entries, now added. Pinging Joy and NmWTfs85lXusaybq as it has changed since their comments. Boleyn (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're using the term Bosut to refer to topics that are not named that way mononymously. What are the references saying that anyone refers to either the Bosut culture or the Bosut Forest as just "Bosut"? This is not generally ambiguous. The original terms that these English translations are based on are all in adjectival or appositive form, the river is the primary topic and these are some features found around it and are named after it, but there is no ambiguity. I see you also since found some obscure football club, which is probably why it's a red link and will remain so for the forseeable future because the notability is doubtful. It's plausible that such a football club is referred to just as "Bosut", but in the case of such minor topics it would be nice to see a modicum of proof first. This sounds to me like scraping the bottom of the barrel to keep this, the average English reader isn't going to experience much ambiguity either way... --Joy (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example, a quick google brings up a Serbian news article from this year which consistently uses forms of the noun "Bosut" to refer to the village, but then consistently uses "OFK Bosut" to refer to the club, never once using it ambiguously. --Joy (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Joy would withdraw this nomination, I'm stricking my vote. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I still think Boleyn's interpretation of WP:PTM here is wrong, but I don't want to perpetuate an edit war by repeating edits like [32] or [33]. --Joy (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you fine with OFK Bosut, Joy? This entry is blue linked by List of football clubs in Vojvodina and wasn't removed in your edit, which could warrant this dab. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the sub-thread directly above, I don't think we need a list for that until there's a modicum of proof that anyone actually uses is ambiguously. --Joy (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The village, football club and newly added minesweeper are clearcut legit entries, so even if the other two are marginal, that's enough for a dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now, this is like you're trying to represent the search engine output in disambiguation page form. From the list of ships at Neštin-class river minesweeper, none of them even have red links (apparently the writer of the list didn't even believe in their red link potential?), and I could find none of them listed/linked from Neštin (not even the whole class!), Titel (disambiguation), Belegiš, Apatin, Smederevo (has other hatnotes), Novi Sad (disambiguation), Újpest (has a hatnote), Baja, Százhalombatta, Óbuda, Dunaújváros, Dunaföldvár. This again sounds like a solution in search of a problem. WP:NOTBURO comes to mind. --Joy (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:DABMENTION: "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader." I've been adding article-less ships in numerous other dab pages for quite a while without complaint ... until now. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid argument. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're citing a manual of style and an explanatory essay after I mentioned the policy that says: Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. The principle here should be - let's have a system that makes sure the readers can navigate to various ambiguous uses of the term. These are certainly things named after the river or the village, but they're not actually known to be ambiguous with their eponyms. Maintaining this list in a disambiguation format is unlikely to lead to any appreciable amount of readership, because there's just not much there to read about, these are mere cursory mentions. The value is not there. --Joy (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a valid disambiguation page. It has sufficient entries, all of which are reasonable disambiguation entries per WP:DAB. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the village, culture, forest, minesweeper, football club are all valid dab page entries. PamD 08:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 not to retain, but no consensus (and some opposition) to redirecting. Daniel (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skoki, Szczecin[edit]

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

Unsourced for 15+ years. I wasn't able to find single source that indicates that this neighborhood exists, much less is notable. A PROD was removed with the justification that it's mentioned on a few Polish Wikipedia articles, but it's not sourced there either. HappyWith (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. HappyWith (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't seem to be legally recognized, so will need to be evaluated under WP:GNG, which it fails. I also found no references online. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skoki (disambiguation). Does not even have an article on pl wiki, per disambig there (pl:Skoki) which lists it without a link. Fails GNG. We should redirect it to the same disambig as pl wiki does. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose a redirect. It hasn't been demonstrated this is even a real place, so this would undoubtedly fail RfD. HappyWith (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Surinamese[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet GNG. BEFORE pulled up no sources. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 02:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Lebanon, and South America. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 02:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I can't find anything that treats this as a subject in-and-of-itself, thus failing GNG. I can't even think of a good target for a merge. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable topic and there are no good merge candidates — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#Description of the cartoons. Two relists, no one suggesting retention or providing further input. However this is a viable AtD given its origins. Star Mississippi 02:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Obviously a NOTINDISCRIMINATE vio Mach61 (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Islam, and Denmark. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article could be marginally more useful if it contained information on what was offensive about the cartoons based on what RS say, but even then, I fail to see why what boils down to a caption needs its own article. Cortador (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Netscott in 2006 broke it out of Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#Description of the cartoons as a subtopic of an already lengthy main article. Uncle G (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, NOTINDISCRIMINATE cancels out, because of the double-negative, to DISCRIMINATE, acronym-speakers. Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Daniel (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VISTA (economics)[edit]

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

The article is one of many articles for acronym-groupings of countries that happened in the 2010–2012 period as a result of the popularity of the BRIC term. However, the term VISTA has not had sustained reliable coverage. In other words, it was a concept that was floated, received some minor coverage at one point in time, and has not had any coverage since. It is not notable. Thenightaway (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, South Africa, Indonesia, Vietnam, Turkey, and Argentina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - acronym/neologism without in-depth coverage in RS; flash-in-pan. Neutrality^talk 15:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with all the above Chidgk1 (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 02:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging market debt[edit]

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

The article is completely unsourced. It's someone's WP:OR essay that muses on the topic of emerging markets and debt. Thenightaway (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Business, Economics, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes it's WP:OR. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial term. killer bee  07:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radosava Kočanović[edit]

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

The subject, a Macedonian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions such as 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Montenegro. JTtheOG (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. ✗plicit 02:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Manzanares[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. The subject has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3. It also seems like she has been retired since at least 2018. JTtheOG (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Nicaragua. JTtheOG (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Jim O'Neill, Baron O'Neill of Gatley. as an AtD. Firstly I find that the 'delete' arguments make a more compelling case and have appropriately refuted the only dissenting voice. This article was mentioned in the nomination and then proposed as a redirect by Neutrality, and on that basis I think this is a viable AtD. Feel free to retarget this if you feel there is a better redirect target. Daniel (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MINT (economics)[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about this concept. This is a concept coined by Jim O'Neill, Baron O'Neill of Gatley who coined the BRIC concept and has tried to coin similar catchy terms for all kinds of groupings of countries (such as "Next Eleven" and "MIKT"). To what extent the concept has been covered by reliable sources, it's usually in context to BRIC. For example, WSJ covers the term with this headline: "O'Neill, Man Who Coined 'BRICs,' Still Likes BRICs, But Likes MINTs, Too". Thenightaway (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources do show that it is notable as they do talk about it and it is often the main theme of the article - it does not matter if it includes BRIC or not. If not, the lead and the "Thesis" sections (and maybe overview) could be merged into a section in the BRIC article? Personally I see no reason to delete, but if it is does not have it's own article it should be merged and redirect so that people can find out the term (and not just redirected, as then it will be confusing as readers may think it means the same as BRIC or something). DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What sources cover this term aside from a few from 2013 that say, "The guy who coined BRIC has now coined a new term"? Is that all it takes for notability? Thenightaway (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is only Source #4. If you look at the first 3 they all cover it in depth. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources are reliable. Source 1 is unreliable per WP:FORBESCON, source 2 is a person's editorial posted on the website for a small British finance broker, and source 3 is Business Insider which is of disputed reliability per WP:BUSINESSINSIDER and whose coverage should not be seen as an indicator of notability. Thenightaway (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Business, Economics, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nigeria, Indonesia, Turkey, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - basically a dictionary definition or neologism that has not achieved significant, in-depth coverage in RS. The economies themselves obviously have plenty of coverage in the sources, but the acronym does not. A brief mention in Emerging market, List of country groupings, Jim O'Neill, Baron O'Neill of Gatley, or a redirect to one of those articles, would be appropriate. Neutrality^talk 14:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator Chidgk1 (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 00:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E7 (countries)[edit]

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

This is a flashy term coined by a company which has occasionally been regurgitated by low-quality sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The purpose of the encyclopedia is not to advertise slogans and labels that companies bandy about to advertise their services. The term overlaps with terms such as Emerging market, Newly industrialized country, Emerging and growth-leading economies and half a dozen similar concepts. If there is anything worth keeping in this article (there isn't), then the content should be merged with any of the aforementioned articles. Thenightaway (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Economics, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China, Indonesia, India, Russia, Turkey, Brazil, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Never heard of this term ever before. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article contains nothing but a number of predictions about when the E7 will overtake the G7. The term has been used by a number of RS, but there is a distinct lack of sources about the E7. Cortador (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can find lots of academic sources when I search "E7 countries" or "Emerging 7 countries" in google scholar. Might be notable. --94rain ^Talk 02:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources that I see in my Google Scholar search are from esteemed journals. All are from unknown journals, including some published by predatory publishers Thenightaway (talk) 11:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Unveiling the liaison between financial development dimensions, energy efficiency and ecological footprint in the context of institutional frameworks: evidence from the Emerging-7 economies	Environmental Science and Pollution Research has an impact factor of 5.8 per Journal Citation Reports	Covered "emerging-7" 37 times	? Unknown
The dynamic effect of eco-innovation and environmental taxes on carbon neutrality target in emerging seven (E7) economies	Journal of Environmental Management has an impact factor of 8.7 per JCR	Mentioned "emerging-7" 4 times, "E7" 23 times	? Unknown
Asymmetric effect of COVID-19 pandemic on E7 stock indices: Evidence from quantile-on-quantile regression approach	Research in International Business and Finance has an impact factor of 6.5 per JCR	Mentioned "emerging 7" 5 times, "E7" 28 times	? Unknown
Achieving Carbon Neutrality Pledge through Clean Energy Transition: Linking the Role of Green Innovation and Environmental Policy in E7 Countries	journal has an article Energies (journal)	Mentioned "E7" 67 times	? Unknown
Cogitating the role of Technological Innovation and Institutional Quality in Formulating the Sustainable Development Goal Policies for E7 Countries: Evidence from Quantile Regression	journal has an article Global Business Review	Mentioned "E7" 28 times	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

How would you determine a journal is "esteemed"? First I want to state that I'm aware that WP:NJOURNALS is merely an essay. But it's worth noting that several journals where these sources are from have an assigned impact factor as per the Journal Citation Reports and some are even pretty high (Typically, the average is below 1, many do not even have an assigned impact factor). I randomly selected 4. The question is if these count as SIGCOV and I'll leave it to you or the community to decide (Please see the Source assessment table). --94rain ^Talk 09:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator - anyway Russia is no longer emerging economically - it is spending its big reserves and will eventually run out and do the opposite of 'emerge' if Putin remains in power

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 for notability Star Mississippi 02:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All Seasons Place, Penang[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD had minimal participation. Does not have coverage to meet GNG. One source merely confirms a bus runs to the centre, another source confirms the statement "a flea market opens within the mall every weekend, offering apparel at discounted prices" LibStar (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Malaysia. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note the previous AfD, to paraphrase, "Size confers notability, this is a large mall hence notable." except there is no guideline about size of a mall and notability and this mall is actually pretty small/local. What it most certainly isn't, is notable. No SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks fine to me and seems to meet content requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any outstanding issues regarding the article's notability should have been resolved, now that the article has been rewritten and news-based citations added, mainly on the development's history. hundenvonPG (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None, absolutely none, of that coverage confers or points to notability. A supermarket opens? They do that. It's all WP:ROUTINE. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd appreciate some assessment of the changes made since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Source 1, coverage of opening press event, interview. Source 2, coverage of developer, interview. Source 3, developer website. Source 4, developer website. Source 5, single sentence mention of supermarket opening. Source 6, press coverage of supermarket opening, interview with supermarket director. Source 7, mall directory. Source 8, two-line mention in Time Out listing. Source 9, property website listing and finally, and pretty much representative of the quality of sourcing on offer here, Source 10 is a bus timetable (the mall is on the route). And that is precisely why I said it's all WP:ROUTINE. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sourcing has been argued, looking for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Delete per the source review by Alexandermcnabb, the references in the article do not pass GNG, as routine coverages and interviews aren't going to help this article satsify notability guidelines. If three sources that are GNG-worthy are found, please ping, but otherwise delete. Tails Wx 02:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BEFORE check does not show any coverage of significance other than what's in the article, which I think is insufficient. Source analysis shows what's available just does not constitute significant coverage. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it could perhaps be moved to All Seasons Park, Penang and expanded to cover the condo towers. All Seasons Park – A Landmark Development, All Seasons Park etc. could provide content on the residential side. The difficulty with a place like this is the search results are swamped by commercial sites advertising businesses in the mall. But there are enough news sources to show notability, as one would expect for such a conspicuous development. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 2 links you provide seem quasi-advertising and wouldn't count as reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 NHS trust. Star Mississippi 02:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enfield Primary Care NHS Trust[edit]

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

Defunct organisation, not particularly notable, article full of unsourced trivia and conjecture. Single reference is a public health report for the borough on Enfield, not able the trust itself. Elshad (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NHS trust. I found a mention here, but it is in-depth so redirect it for now. 154.21.186.89 (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your reference (which is from 2022) clearly relates to Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust, not this trust which was abolished in 2013. Elshad (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies as the keep !vote is essentially OSE and this is a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 02:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linda T. Walker[edit]

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

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider; possible redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies Snickers2686 (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Georgia (U.S. state), Louisiana, and Mississippi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies: Agree with the nom that this subject is not notable and does not meet either the WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE, however here as a failed judicial nominee we have a redirect target related to it as a WP:AFD, where she is already listed. User:Let'srun 01:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: our guideline here is WP:JUDGE, not another deletion discussion. She is a judge with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Although this is not a statewide court, many other individuals in this same position are linked in that article, indicating that Wikipedia has previously determined judges of this court to be notable. Since this article has sources, there is no issue that I can find. Rublamb (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I already noted to you at Donna Ryu, Walker is a magistrate judge, which is a much lesser role within the judiciary system (handling administrative issues primarily, and not holding trials) and does not meet WP:JUDGE as she has never been a judge on a statewide court. To my knowledge, no other magistrate judges in this district have wikipedia articles, and even if they do, WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST applies. Let'srun (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J. Rich Leonard[edit]

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

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider, failed judicial nominee, lacking sourcing to warrant standalone article Snickers2686 (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and North Carolina. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies: Agree with the nom that this subject is not notable and does not meet either the WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE. Best to redirect to a list of failed Bill Clinton judicial appointees, where he already is listed. User:Let'srun 02:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am reading the wrong article? I do see this guy was a magistrate and failed judicial nominee for another job, but he was also a Bankruptcy Judge and a law school dean among other things? Within a few minute I added sources for what seem like a number of claims for notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is acknowledged as, "the longest-serving dean of a law school in North Carolina". — Maile (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's just enough coverage alongside totality of circumstances (Dean, judicial appointment etc) to meet WP:N — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage exists and roles as dean and judge meet notability. Rublamb (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LackeyCCG[edit]

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

I could not find a single secondary reliable source online. Every source cited in the article is primary, a forum post, or one person's blog. QuietCicada - Talk 01:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Software. QuietCicada - Talk 01:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable; possibly WP:TOOSOON. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Sources presented in this discussion are an effective contradiction to assertions in nomination statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Copley Township shooting[edit]

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

Fails WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNEWS. All sources on this shooting were published between 7 and 10 August 2011. A brief burst of coverage of coverage at the time of the event, with no further analysis or discussion is textbook PERSISTENCE, and there is no demonstration of enduring notability required to pass NOTNEWS. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Ohio. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Copley Township, Ohio: as a one-paragraph section, as we normally do with events that are only locally noteworthy. Owen× ☎ 01:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think. Tenuous but it's not nothing.

2012 https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/local/2012/08/07/copley-mother-still-struggling-for/10676433007/

2012 https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/local/2012/08/07/copley-shootings-left-eight-dead/10676293007/

2012 https://www.cleveland19.com/story/19221014/remembering-one-year-anniversary-of-copley-massacre/

2012 https://fox8.com/news/community-members-honor-slain-neighbors-1-year-later/

2012 https://www.thepostnewspapers.com/norton/local_news/academy-students-learn-at-risk-clues/article_51a74867-328d-5143-8fe2-0c1a60065658.html

2013 https://patch.com/ohio/fairlawn-bath/officer-receives-medal-of-bravery-for-gunning-down-cofd347c8d84

discussed for a few pages in The Last Gun in 2013

The subject of an entire article of American Handgunner titled "The mass killer, the cop and the armed citizen" in November 2013

Retrospective article from a survivor in 2019 https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/crime/2019/08/12/this-isn-t-happening/4482037007/

Offhand mention in 2021 involving the officer that shot him but which I think shows at least local importance https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/akron-canton-news/copley-resource-officer-saves-choking-student-at-copley-middle-school

It's tenuous but there is coverage after the fact that tips it over to keep IMO. Also it was an "active shooter incident" due to the higher death toll so it's in a bunch of FBI reports but I don't think that really counts for notability PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the found sources of coverage in the years following the massacre. I think they're sufficient. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as appears notable per above. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 22:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Side note: that's fine, I'm not too proud to admit when something is a learning opportunity. Experience is the best teacher and for unique situations like this, I'll know how to address them in the future.

[FOOTNOTELarsonAscarza201011-2] Larson & Ascarza 2010, p. 11.

[FOOTNOTEDevine201569-3] Devine 2015, p. 69.

[a]

[1]

[2]