Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 31	February 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radoslav Vlašić[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Yugoslavia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman, and ping me as well. starship .paint (exalt) 07:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Is not notable. Alex-h (talk) 08:54, 4 February 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. Star Mississippi 02:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Momir Desnica[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, hard to find even database entries. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman, and ping me as well. starship .paint (exalt) 07:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Is not notable. Alex-h (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 09:29, 4 February 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. Sandstein 07:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée Français Josué Hoffet[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Could not find significant coverage, the only sources provided are its own website. LibStar (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Laos, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The current references are non-independent; my WP:BEFORE found databases, e.g., 1, and routine announcements including 1 (announcement regarding a new building being built) and 2. Overall, none of the references are significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources, failing WP:GNG or WP:NORG IMO. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and User:Bearian/Standards#Notability of High Schools at WP:AfD. Very small private school where sources are impractical to find. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 7 February 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. Star Mississippi 02:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Redpath[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The only available sources on him seem to be run-of-the-mill campaign coverage, trivial mentions, and WP:PRIMARY. My WP:BEFORE search across multiple search engines found no WP:RS-based significant coverage of him. Please note that having been a national chair of a minor party does not confer presumed notability. Sal2100 (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Politicians, Libertarianism, Virginia, and Illinois. Sal2100 (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sal2100 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I do not believe his runs for office or his chairmanship of the Libertarian Party qualify him as notable. However, a review of Ballot Access News and some newspaper searches indicate that he might qualify under general advocacy for ballot access even if done as chairman of the LNC. Other LNC chairs have not gotten that kind of coverage for ballot access advocacy. I'm not so sure of that outcome that I can demonstrate we should keep the article, but anyone who is advocating a "keep" may want to explore that route.--Mpen320 (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail NPOL and GNG. There's just not much RS coverage. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and because consensus has changed to exclude minor party officers from automatic notability, and due to lack of coverage, this person is not notable. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 7 February 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 Squier. Viable AtD and no indication further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 02:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stagemaster[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Essentially unreferenced here, lots of collector how-to information about identification as original research. All I'm finding are bite-size reviews that don't meet the "significant" part of WP:GNG. Mikeblas (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Products. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Squier the manufacturer, I really don't see much about this guitar. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 2 February 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 Fender (company). Star Mississippi 02:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Stringmaster[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable commercial product. Not much change in the 13 years since the previous nomination -- just the addition of original research material. Essentially unreferenced. Pretty eays to find trivial review coverage, but that doesn't satisfy the "significant" part of WP:GNG. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Products. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. BruceThomson (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are some decent sources at the last AfD discussing this model series' importance and use by lap steel players, and my own research corroborates this. Here's a couple other sources including one that says it "revolutionized the guitar world": [1] [2]. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fender (company). Have added some information about the Fender Stringmaster to the Products section of the main Fender company page. The Stringmaster does get mentioned in a lot of places, but it's usually just a sentence or two. For example, in the Gruhn book referenced above, the passage is a photo caption that reads In 1953, the Stringmaster models debuted with a double-pickup system. The new pickup, in single or double configuration, would eventually be adopted on all steels and would also extend to some low-end guitar models. It was also mentioned a lot historically in guitar magazine profiles of famous guitarists, when asked to list their favorite models. Unfortunately I'm not seeing anything in-depth enough to add meaningful citations to the content currently on the Stringmaster page, though, so for that reason I would say – redirect, and then any further (sourced) info found on the product could be added there. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:30, 3 February 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. Some possible sources were mentioned during the debate but apparently failed to sway any of the "delete" !votes. Some new editors suddenly appearing have have been mostly ignored, especially when ther arguments just boiled down to WP:ILIKEIT. Randykitty (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Essential Mix episodes[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced episode list. Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome: [3]https://www.mixesdb.com/w/Category:Essential_Mix 88.230.52.78 (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[4]https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/essentialmix/tracklistings2002.shtml

Official episode list archive from 2002 to 2009 88.230.52.78 (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are not sufficient for the issues raised here. BBC is a primary source here and I doubt MixesDB is reliable. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With small errors, MixesDB can be considered a completely worthy source of information. Alas, BBC does not store such information anywhere from sources known to me. 88.230.52.78 (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list should have never been made to begin with. Catfurball (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as merging it into Essential Mix would result in excessive size. Yes it is unsourced, but it appears to be sourcable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need to keep this information! 88.230.52.78 (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Prove it (if "sourcable"): Fails all relevant notability guidelines. Cross-sea searches might be location biased but there are some mentions of Essential Mix, that already has an article, "The 15 Best", "Mix Of The Day", Essential Mix Podcast, "13 bass-heavy BBC Radio 1 Essential Mixes...", but not one reliable, independent source to validate such a large unsourced article. That Wikipedia is not a TV guide also goes for not being a program or radio guide. Even if there was a source It is an indiscriminate listing. I cannot find information to support keeping an otherwise non-notable article because it can't be merged. Also, Wikipedia is not a repository or fan site and such a compilation of material is synthesis. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The wiki, meanwhile, may be the only place to have the most accurate list of episodes. Delete 200 lines of text, obviously solve a lot of the world's problems, yeah 88.230.52.78 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for now) Essential Mix has a cultural significance and reference to a variety of artists within the electronic music genre. BBC Radio 1 had never publicly kept an open database or archives of the specific show which lead to fan based sources that might not be reliable (MixesDB etc) Official BBC twitter account used a Wikipedia page as a source of information back in 2018 [5]Which is an issue of synthesis. 24.212.204.133 (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:NOTDIRECTORY is the issue here. We are an encyclopedia, not an episode guide. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To say Wikipedia isn't a TV guide, there are a vast number of shows that have 'List of [show] episodes' and provide similar information, though TV has ratings and further credits. I don't see how this is any different. Looking further there's "List of Radiolab episodes" that seems very much the same. Noletuary (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NOTDIRECTORY is the issue here. Even if this is completely sourced, this is outside the scope of WP:NLIST. There is zero evidence presented or found in a reasonable BEFORE this material has been discussed in RS as a set of content. BusterD (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NLIST guidelines, if a reliable group of independent sources consider the list notable then it can be accepted as a stand alone list, right? For example the independent sources would be the musicians/(critics) themselves that had been featured on the show would voice their support and why the radio show is valuable which leads to the list being accepted. Would critic of the show be considered a reliable/journalistic source as well [6]https://www.dirtydiscoradio.com/the-15-best-radio-1-essential-mixes-list-ever-broadcasted/ 192.81.226.230 (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are plenty more sources available besides the BBC site, for example Resident Advisor, mixmag, DJMag, I am sure the sourcing on this could be improved. I disagree that this is indiscriminate, appearing on the essential mix is the kind of "featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment" meant by WP:MUSIC criterion 12, so the artists on this list should all be notable, even though many currently don't have articles. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep re-adding my comment below the relisting.

There are a vast number of shows that have 'List of [show] episodes' and provide similar information, I don't see how this is any different. There's TV episode lists that have more info like rating/prod code/summaries but looking further there's "List of Radiolab episodes" that seems very much the same.

If it's strictly the lack of source. Some examples have been provided above, and probably since the creation of this page each edit could put BBC Radio 1's page as the source as new ones are added, the issue is BBC just does not preserve it past a month. But that's a fair amount of time for others to review and confirm, and keep this encyclopedia of BBC Radio 1 Essential Mix Programming that I and many others use. Noletuary (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTVGUIDE "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events". - If the fact that some people add the upcoming weeks shows that BBC posts is the issue, we can keep it to past shows only.

"Historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." - This show has been run in excess of 25 years and is one of BBC Radio One's longest running programs Noletuary (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This information is fully verifiable via the BBC Programme Index. Rillington (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"As a result of the scanning process, much of the data extracted from Radio Times needed to be tidied up. We have run a crowd-sourcing exercise, asking members of the public to correct typos and errors in the text to make them accurately reflect the Radio Times magazine entries." I did find some discrepancies compared to the Wikipedia page as far as the first 9 mixes in 1993. I think we found our source though. 192.81.226.230 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment The article can be tidied up without any need to discuss the notion of the article being deleted.Rillington (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments presented by filelakeshoe. ResonantDis_tortion 18:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOTDIRECTORY this is just a huge collection and not properly sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Per nom. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Alex-h (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came across the Flume essential mix on YouTube and wanted to see what other mixes there were. This page definitely helped me find the mixes quickly and easily via the tables. I don't know why you would want to delete this page it certainly helped me. I'm sure there are dozens of other people who also did the same thing. I'd rather quickly go on Wikipedia than whatever monstrosity of a website the BBC has going on. Newresdesignisdumb420! (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC) — Newresdesignisdumb420! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: I'm forced to point out that this fourteen year old list has never seen a reliable source applied to it, even during this deletion process. Zero sources. 164,954 bytes but not a single citation. BusterD (talk) 11:24, 9 February 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. It appears that so close to the event we are not able to come to a consensus about whether this is a routine or notable incident. I recommend considering renominating the article in a few months to be better able to determine whether it continues to be covered and whether it is of lasting importance or not. Sandstein 07:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer[edit]

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

Appears to be (sadly) another shooting incident in the USA, I find no lasting coverage beyond descriptions of the event. Even what's described here is basically a transcript of the event as it took place, with no critical comment around the event or why it's notable beyond any other such event that happens all too often. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Police, and North Carolina. Skynxnex (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article and expand it. I'd say the available video should be linked. Whatever cops were involved here are either incompetent or corrupt or both. They probably conspired and made false statements in their official capacity. 2605:A601:AC71:C100:E91B:3A2C:66C6:7F0E (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We require reliable sources to support this, that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. While I think your criticism is valid, looking this subject up online shows many sources talking about this sad event. I think this article should probably have those sources and what they say added. Also, I think the issue is mainly that, because it is an event from only a day ago, their aren't many very apparent huge reactions to this to talk about besides the big media coverage. So, we should probably just add a tag saying to expand it and not delete it. Sorry for disagreeing with you. Thank you and have a good day. Tvshowoflife (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand. I think the article needs more analysis but it would be like saying to delete the George Floyd shooting page when it first got started. This will likely be a major case as it is currently making national headlines, not necessarily for the shooting but for the false press release and how the media accepted it without challenging it. John Oliver did a piece on this exact issue. Just search John Oliver "Police Say" Mrsunstar2 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
slightly hyperbolic, in`it? When we started the Wikipedia article of George Floyd, George Floyd was lynched in the middle of the street, in front of 50 eyewitnesses, and the video was seen in 140 countries within 24 hours. Professor Guru (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seriously? That a supposedly common shooting in the U.S. without any fatalities garnered international coverage in the United Kingdom [7], Greece, [8], and Hungary [9] speaks to its notability. Plus, the shooting took place in December, but the increased international coverage is coming in January. starship .paint (exalt) 22:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google "Jason Harley Kloepfer"[10] and you'll find many articles, some international, mostly dating from within the last 48 hours. This was likely 'not notable' originally due to the fact Mr. Kloepfer wasn't mortally wounded in the encounter. It seems it's getting traction now because he's published the video. I'd suggest this is noteable as the video pretty well refutes the official police version of events. Padrone56 (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand - Whether to keep the page shouldn't be a question at this point. There have been developments and further publications since the story first aired and the original story is completely contradicted by said developments. The only reason the story changed is because the man had evidence of his own and the media were reporting what they had no reason to refute for the time. This is not "just another" police shooting, as sad of a low bar that is to pass. Having an article will serve the usual purpose of Wikipedia in summarizing and updating the events as they occur. Daneonwayne (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Woah there, the victim is white, so why bother making an article about something that will vanish from the news and be conveniently forgotten about? Only evil right-wing media like the New York Post are mentioning the story, so any wikipedian with pronouns in his bio should realize the political implications of keeping this article, and vote for deletion like a good boy. You wouldn't want people asking why no reliable sources are talking about this incident, would you? 64.119.9.36 (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Those aren't reliable sources quoting the shooting, and I don't really care what ethnicity the person is. Yes, please ask why there are no reliable sources, that's the whole point of this deletion exercise. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - The claim that there are no reliable sources is false. Just review the sources in the article. starship .paint (exalt) 23:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was commenting on the New York Post, which we don't accept as RS. The other sources seem ok. Oaktree b (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oaktree b and User:Starship.paint, please don't respond to such trolling--just roll it back. It's not worth our time. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm hoping we can have a civil discussion here. I tend to value all points of view; when you take away the strong emotions, there is still an idea there the person could discuss. And maybe we make a better, contributory editor out of them, that's always appreciated on wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand The discussion above points out that there is broad coverage about the event in WP:RS. I counted 10 recognizable WP:RS in a Google search. This meets WP:WEIGHT, which is the criterion for keeping an article. ––Nbauman (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should NOT be deleted. It should be amplified. Americans need to know what is happening. 184.23.23.16 (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination

1. Article completely fails WP:NPOL and the level of coverage is not above the amount expected for a local shooting. There are about 3,500 police shootings in the US. I do not assume we are going to start creating Wikipedia pages for each shooting, are we?

2. This shooting in particular isn’t notable (except of course being captured on CCTV camera). Cops (allegedly) lied (and I`m even doubtfull of that), they will not go to prison, the victim is going to get a nice $500,000 settlement and that will be the end of the story.

3. There is a strong case that deletion under WP:NPOV also applies. (Citizen)-Journalists shouldnt be writing (highly) sensationalised Wikipedia articles. I have read the article 5 times, and (besides the copy editing problem which I am not even going to mention here), the article lacks any form of Encyclopaedic distance and objectivity. Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia and not a news rag.

4. Even the alleged lie is a stretch. I just had a look at the video and compared it to the press release. And the questions I had were...

5. did he engage in a verbal altercation with the police? Yes, so where is the lie?

6. did he show empty hands when he emerge from the door? No, so where is the lie?

7. did he have an object/a gadget in his hands when he emerged at the door? Yes, so where is the lie?

8. I do not see any evidence that the SWAT officers who shot, and the officer who placed the camera in his trailer are the same person.

9. We need to be careful with writing Encyclopeadic articles before the police investigation or prosecutor probe has even formally started. Just on defamation alone this article needs to be deleted.

Professor Guru (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that this is defamation is ludicrous, as well as the claim that the suspect engaged in a verbal altercation with police. The Independent is clearest on this: The press release initially shared by the office claimed that Mr Kloepfer “engaged in a verbal altercation with officers” and that he then came out of the home and “confronted” police which supposedly led to the 41-year-old being shot. But the surveillance shows a different version of events. Every other source either states that the suspect was complying, or that the police account is contradicted. WVTC: A new video of this incident provides a different account of what police say happened WLOS: The surveillance footage released by Kloepfer appears to show a conflicting account of the event. Furthermore, your assertion that there was indeed a verbal altercation shown in the video is unfortunately unsourced and can be taken as WP:OR. We’re not going to have articles on every shooting in the United States, but when a shooting gets international coverage in places like Greece, that should be clue enough that it is notable. starship .paint (exalt)

Keep and expand This is a chronicle of one of many incidents of police execution (attempted) and then a cover-up. Why this would be deleted is beyond imagination 97.93.25.193 (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I transferred the above comment from the talk page. [11] Appears to be a mistaken placement by the IP. starship .paint (exalt) 14:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS seems to be applicable here. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: According to the in-house video this apparently is a travesty. This article is sourced with breaking news sources and Wikipedia is not supposed to be a news paper or breaking news outlet. There is absolutely zero neutral point of view. A source with a video states "Firing squad at 5 A.M. -- Police shoot unarmed and disabled man...". True or not this taints the article. Read one of the "Keep" comments: "Whatever cops were involved here are either incompetent or corrupt or both." How can an article like this even come close to a a neutral point of view or the other fundamental principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I am not going to issue a !vote because there is enough actually for a speedy keep. The one lone "Delete" !vote is confusing. Shame on esteemed editors that support breaking news that is far too soon to be in an encyclopedia. We should change the title to "Crooked cops shoot unarmed disabled man". Wait! That is what I got from the article, sources, and editor's comments, so why not, if consensus against policy means we go with consensus? The good news is that this might be subjected to deletion at some later point. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Added note: The article is likely subjected to EVENTCRIT. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand: This story is continuing to unfold with an active investigation. I expect more coverage in the future, and existing coverage is more than adequate, including from reliable sources such as The Independent. Easily meets WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. The article does have some issues as editors have pointed out above, but those should be fixed while the article remains. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS - Outside of local outlets, it looks like most of this "international coverage" people are pointing to are tabloid media. The UK's Mirror and Daily Mail and the NY Post have picked this up, probably because its good clickbait. Anecdotally, I live in NC and have not seen this covered in any local or state media that I regularly read (WRAL-TV, The News & Observer, etc. which covered other state police shootings of more interest like the Killing of Andrew Brown Jr.). We cite Hungary's RTL here, and according to RTL's own Wikipedia article: "Its informational content has also received heavy criticism. Its newscasts have emphasized crime and human interest stories, sensationalistic reporting, a faster-paced format, heavy use of graphics and visuals, and on-the-scene coverage. Its newsmagazine Fokusz has also received criticism, due to its mix of stories rotated around controversial issues and entertainment news. However, after 2014, the station's informational content, including its main evening news, has been including more political and serious news, improving its reputation over media critics and gaining credibility with viewers." I'd like to see more long term coverage from respectable regional or national US media or international media before saying we should keep this. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand: Regarding "3,500 police shootings in the US", the follow-up comment shows understanding as to why this has become notable with the phrase "except of course being captured on CCTV camera". The true baseline number isn't "3,500 police shootings", but "Number of police shootings caught on camera showing the person shot cooperating and compliant and contradicting the police agency's initial narrative". That number is much less, and makes this much more notable. It's also why the incident is getting widespread national and international coverage. 2605:A601:A130:B900:BA63:A515:F05A:108C (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find no international coverage in the last week, other than the Daily Mail and another UK tabloid; I've performed a .ca Google news search, no Canadian outlets have picked this up. Beyond the sensationalism, I'm not seeing international coverage in RS. It seems to have petered out in the news cycle. As the nominator, I've already ~voted, this is more of an fyi for the closing admin, however this discussion gets decided. Oaktree b (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Commonplace is not the same as 'not noteworthy.' Cross Reference (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable Its WP:NOTNEWS WP:TOOSOON WP:NPOL

I frankly don’t see anything controversial. A man was suspected of kidnapping, emerged from the door with something in his hands with a woman behind him, and the cops shot him (non-lethal) to eliminate any possible threat without killing him.

You know as story is mostly sensationalised when yellow press from 3 countries in Europe picks up the story, but hardly any local media itself. Why the article is in Wikipedia is beyond me.

there is no police investigation announced.
there is no autopsy report
there is no District Attorney investigation
there is no Federal civil rights motion filed.
there are no reported protests
there are no activist/organisation
there are no statements from public officials
there are no proposals on law changes
there are no criminal charges
there are no arrests
there are no arraignments
there are no indictments
there are no lawsuits
this case literally has nothing (except a video that has freaked people out).

This case is a story that lands on the news desk of the Washington Post or Charlotte Observer local news editor, and he frankly doesn’t know what to do with the story after making 5-6 phone calls to the police chief, the victims attorneys, the district attorney and the counties medical examiner. The story is dead!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.247.251.178 (talk • contribs)

Comment - just a note that the article has been reviewed (template:Did_you_know_nominations/Shooting_of_Jason_Harley_Kloepfer) and marked ready for the Main Page as a WP:DYK hook if it survives this AfD. starship .paint (exalt) 15:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is very little discussion above that is based in policy, and what little there is is evenly divided. I'm tempted to protect the AfD, but for the moment I will stop at requesting that everyone base their opinions on relevant policies and guidelines (WP:N, WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BLP1E come to mind) or accept that their opinions will be ignored otherwise. Certainly railing about users with "pronouns in their bio" isn't going to help reach a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only put the pronouns there after another AfD where I misgendered someone. Can't please anyone anymore. Back to policy, I don't see any coverage about the incident outside of local media. No media Canada have picked up this story. ROUTINE? It's just an incident police responded to, with no lasting coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back to policy, I don't see any coverage about the incident outside of local media. … so Britain, Greece, Hungary and Tennessee are all in North Carolina? Because that’s exactly where some of the media sources are from, e.g. The Independent. Why insist on Canada? In fact, the January 2023 (and now February 2023 also!) sources are lasting coverage because the incident was made public and reported on in December 2022, and there is further potential for lasting coverage in March 2023 with the hearing, as well as the state bureau investigating. starship .paint (exalt) 00:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we sit right on top on the US, so most stuff that gets coverage there at least gets some mention here. If it isn't, that's usually some sort of red flag that this isn't likely notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And expand. Sources in article are sufficient for inclusion of this article. But it needs work.BabbaQ (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - when this article was nominated for AfD [12], it was a ~350 word stub with 4 references. Now, it has been expanded to a 900+ words article, 9 references over 3 months, all from different outlets, coverage in 4 countries in total, WP:GNG has got to be satisfied. Plus potential for even more coverage as further developments are still possible. starship .paint (exalt) 07:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a news event with no encyclopedic aspects. If every event that was covered in newspapers (and sensationalized online because there is video to show), WP would be no more than a news archive. Which it does not intend to be, as per policies WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME. I have no idea why Hungarian and Greek web sites have picked this up, nor do I know if those are "serious" news sites. If you click on the name of the author of the Independent article you see a bunch of sensational articles, all of them video-based. Nothing about this appears in NY Times nor the Washington Post, and was not picked up by national TV networks, so I have to conclude that the crime itself was not of national importance, and the video was online click bait. It was uploaded to Youtube by the WTVC (Chattanoooga) tv station so I assume that's where foreign web sites found it, although one of the Greek sites references a Tweet. That said, I cannot understand why there is a strong movement here to keep this. Lamona (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The criticism of the Independent author having “video-based” articles is puzzling. Had you clicked on those articles themselves, they are revealed to be long written articles with an accompanying video, for example very recently US shoots down suspected Chinese spy balloon (which we even covered on ITN, so this journalist isn’t some small fry, he’s trusted with big stories) and Supreme Court email issues. Sometimes there isn’t even a video, example on Tyre Nichols. Also, if you’re wondering why Hungary or Greece (or Britain) picked this up, the answer is simple. This is not a run-of-the-mill shooting, that’s why. starship .paint (exalt) 03:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please Delete
uhm... actually it is theeee definition a run of a mill shooting.

the question is... should every run of the mill shooting have a Wikipedia article? the reason I`m asking is because

a) over 20,000 police shootings in the US alone, in the past 15 years do not have a Wikipedia article.

b) and over 5,000 police shootings where someone has ACTUALLY been killed do not get a Wikipedia article.

So I simply dont get why this shooting should get one. Once again. Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia for historical worldwide relevant events, and not an aggregator for news rags.

c) We do not write Wikipedia articles based off on 3 newspaper articles of a mildly reported news event.

d) I`m German... I cannot fail to notice that Wikipedia is heavily US centric (and I get the reason why, and I have no problem with that).

But can you imagine what would happen, if Wikis started writing Wikipedia articles about SWAT shootings in

- The Philippines, a country with 6,000 (official) police shootings a year (perhaps even more)? Philipines a cop can just kill anybody and then claim 3 months later: ("oh its ok, he was a drug dealer"). Absolutely no Wikipedia articles.

- or Brazil, a country with 5,800 police shootings a year?

- or Venezuela, a country with 5,200 police shootings a year?

- or India, a country with 3,000 police shootings a year?

- or El Salvador, a country with 1,200 police shootings a year?

- or Nigeria, a country with 1,000 police shootings a year?

- Pakistan, a country with 800 police shootings a year?

- Can you imagine what would happen, if Wikipedia started writing articles about random trailer park police shootings in Kurgumiyew, in South Bashkortostan?

e) the entire purpose of Wikipedia is to capture historical, painful, devastating, life-changing, extraordinary, worldstopping, international 50 country newscycle police shootings (which this shooting is clearly not), in an encyclopaedic format.

Once again... I really dont see this shooting as a "world shaking" event like the Daniel Shaver shooting or the George Floyd lynching... that would need to be chronicled in an Encyclopaedia... It simply isnt. --- Once again Please Delete Professor Guru (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. I've been on both social media and advocating before government agencies that police training is broken in the United States and many other countries, so broken that police shooting are common place to the point of being mundane. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable and the article is developed well enough to stand on its own. No issues with POV or sourcing. The NOTNEWS arguments don’t hold much weight. Shawn Teller (talk) 04:21, 8 February 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. Disregarding the view of Abbasulu who is a blocked sock. Sandstein 07:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Andrew Kishore[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that's your stance on sourcing then you should at least make draft articles first. One of Wikipedia's main pillars is verifiability and if you're not willing to put in the effort to do it yourself (AND do it well) then you shouldn't be making articles in the first place. You can't just throw a huge list of unreferenced, non-notable songs up and have everyone else do the work for you. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 20:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST, WP:SIGCOV and WP:V as well as WP:DEL14. Indiscriminate list with no effective sources. This is about 14 or 16th list I looked at, and not a single one of the confirms to policy. None of the articles are linked, none have references and none have articles. Its been copied and pasted from discog style sites. scope_creep^Talk 22:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems very well sourced. The subject is obviously notable, and there shouldn't be a SIGCOV for each song - this isn't how it works per WP:NLIST, which clearly says that "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is disingenuous to say its well sourced when it NOT well sourced. The consensus which has been established since about 2010 is that every line needs a reference. That is established consensus that is widely accepted. I would accept that consensus today and stop promulgating nonsense like this. scope_creep^Talk 12:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On my second point, do you have any actual WP:RS sources that show any of these songs or a block of them are notable? scope_creep^Talk 12:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The consensus which has been established since about 2010 is that every line needs a reference" - cite it, provide evidence. There are plenty FLs which have one source for all. I've contributed to several FLs where I obviously cited every line, but I'm not sure this is required by policy. When you have such long lists, we should have other considerations. Maybe page splitting is better than not citing every line. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is crass to create articles that are out of our scope, bordering upon WP:CIR. This is one such. The creating editor has attempted to drive a coach and horses through the rules of WP:N and WP:V. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shshshsh: When editors in good standing/WP:AGF tell you the facts about consensus you accept it. Stating stuff like "cite it, provide evidence" when its established consensus is bollocks. You need to really careful here what your saying, because if you keep making these statements, it means you making these statements elsewhere on Wikipedia, which means your damaging Wikipedia and spreading false information to other editors. Eventually they will all be gathered together by somebody, and taken up to WP:ANI and presented as a WP:CIR case. So you need to careful what your saying, because it directly effects other editors. Regarding the article, all those supposed single references in FL article are checked, to prove they cover the information presented per WP:V. This has not been checked. It is just an arbitary list of songs that happen to be included in one film per block. That is the very definition of being non-notable. Nobody looking at list can't tell if any of these songs are notable. That break WP:NPOV and WP:V. It is completely arbitary and break the idea of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. These are not encyclopedia articles. They are trash junk. The references here are schoolboy stuff and indicate WP:CIR issue on its own. scope_creep^Talk 12:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: False information is when no evidence is provided. If there is consensus, it must have been achieved somewhere. The burden of evidence is on you and so you are the one who needs to be very careful about what you're saying and about the policies you're citing here, which I find irrelevant. I don't know about you, but I did work on lists which achieved FL status, so I should know what I'm talking about. By asking you to cite evidence, I'm doing exactly what should be done, and I'm not spreading anything, but on the contrary, demanding that correct information be provided. And you saying that my request that you provide evidence is "damaging wikipedia" is exactly the bad faith you're accusing others of acting in. I should remind you that just a few days ago you were warned by me for your violation of WP:NPA on one of the other AfDs, which you rightly apologised for, so your claim about WP:AGF is uncalled for. This WP:ANI threat is amusing to me, but please note it is not acceptable in any way, and I think ANI could be well used against those who try to intimidate editors into not expressing their opinions. Please adopt a more friendly rhetoric when arguing with editors even if they disagree with you. In case you didn't realise this, I disagree with you. Thank you, Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable singer, just needs sourcing and more information. Consider emboldening the songs and putting them in the first column, rather than the films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They don't do bolding, much now and it would likely be reverted. scope_creep^Talk 12:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we please discuss the specific notability of this list, rather than having a generic discussion about lists of songs by artists? Obviously some are notable, others are not. The question is whether the discography of this artist is notable; and if so, whether a sourced list can be written. Everything else is out of scope.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As most of the list is un-sourced, this is another wall of text. No critical discussion about any songs, reviews or charted info, explaining why any of this is important. Delete, even with what's sourced, we don't have enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep - Poorly sourced, but can be improved. Valiaveetil (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)~~sockstrike Girth Summit _(blether) 17:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment The list contains 1,057 songs. There are citations for 47. Only 2 citations support everything on the song row where cited: year, film, song title, that Kishore sang it, composer, songwriter, and co-artist. So 99.8% incompletely supported, and 95.6% entirely unsourced.
Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that all mainspace content, including lists, be verifiable. The burden lies with the editor who adds material to show that it is verifiable. Abbasulu has had since 17 April 2022 to do so. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as it stands it is simply an indiscriminate list, plus fails WP:VERIFY.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no question that the singer is notable, but that doesn't mean the verifiability policy should be thrown out the window with regard to any list of their works. How can our readers know that this list isn't just made up? The author's other poorly sourced stuff exists argument is unpersuassive, and one to be avoided in these discussions. Shahid's statement that it "seems very well sourced" is divorced from reality. Dr. Blofeld is arguably correct that all the list needs is sources for the 99.8% of it that isn't properly sourced, but we keep content because we know sources exist, not because we hope sources are out there somewhere. Unless and until sources are found, the small amount of sourced material is better dealt with in article Andrew Kishore than in a stand alone list. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:15, 7 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fagnoni family[edit]

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

No evidence of third-party notability despite such claims, no sources to speak of. As a Greek this family 'highly known in Italy and in Greece' (per talk page) is completely unknown to me. Google gives a handful of hit for the name in Greek, of individuals with little notability, and no evidence that they belong to the same family. Constantine ✍ 21:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems fairly likely that this is the family of the article author; the sole link is to a generic last name, but article previously included a copyvio from what appears to be a buy-a-heraldry site (ai generated at that!), the coat of arms image uploaded by article author seems to come from the aforementioned heraldry site and exists nowhere else; and part of the author's name "Walter.fgn" seems to be an abbreviation of Fagnoni. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could perhaps have saved myself some time had I bothered to read the talk page where they say "the information is mostly from family books and documents which have been given to me from a family member." ... Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
im actually not a family mebmber but i have relations with them. They are mostly known in milan, kefalonia and in Athens at the 70s. Because the information is not on the internet if i cant do anything else to prove it you can delete the page. Theodoros.kolokotrones (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sorry i thought you replied to me. Theodoros.kolokotrones (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Iazyges. starship .paint (exalt) 07:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking through Google Books I can see that there is a trattoria run by a Fagnoni, and another here. I also find mentions of people with the last name of Fagnoni in a number of books, but nothing substantial and nothing about the family. I tried "famiglia fagnoni", "fagnoni nobile", and "casa fagnoni". If there are better searches please let me know. Lamona (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and specifically WP:NOTWEBHOST. A family that uses our valuable space for its own personal use is stealing our property. How is this any different from a bunch of teenaged boys trespassing and vandalizing a girl scout camp? Bearian (talk) 15:41, 7 February 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 per improvements made Star Mississippi 02:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Royden Yerkes[edit]

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

Was deprodded without improvement, simply saying that they pass NACADEMIC. However, I'm not seeing how that is. Has been unsourced for years without improvement. While they do get some mentions, can't find the type of in-depth coverage needed to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.Delete I don't see how they pass WP:NACADEMIC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read his obituary, it states he was one of the most notable authors and scholars in the Episcopal Church, I don't believe that confers that his work was notable in the field of theology. I don't believe it's enough to show a pass of NACADEMIC criteria 1. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't ACADEMIC part 5 as the head of the theology department make them notable?Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- No. #C5 is about named chairs given as a sign of distinction for scholarly work. It is not about chairs of departments, an administrative (managerial) role. The only academic criterion that covers administrative work is #C6, and that requires heading an entire university. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are enough reviews (eight currently listed) of his book Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Religions and Early Judaism to convince me that the book is notable. But with only one book, there's not enough for WP:AUTHOR. If someone makes an article on the book we could consider redirecting to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete per David Eppstein. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a theologian, meets NACADEMIC #1 The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources as evidenced by the reviews of Sacrifice and:

His obituary, which states "Father Yerkes had been one of the most notable authors and scholars is the Episcopal Church, having taught in three seminaries, contributed frequently to various theological journals, and served in many official capacities in the Diocese of Chicago, and the Diocese of Pennsylvania."
Coverage of a foundation appointment, which states "He is the author of numerous articles and books in theology, and his latest work has just been accepted for publication by Charles Scribners and Sons and will be released this year."

WP:GNG is met as well. His death was noted in Illinois, Philadelphia and as far away as Texas and California. During his life, his sermons frequently received newspaper coverage across the country: D.C., Alabama, Pennsylvania, Washington (that's a selection but not all of the available newspaper sources).

Jfire (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above including newspaper coverage of himself and book reviews so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- That is a significant body of academic work. The book on sacrifice had 8 reviews, including both sides of the Catholic/Protestant divide. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jfire's sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, agree with the sources found above and the explanations. It's not a slam dunk, but Episcopal theology is a rather narrow field of study to start with. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 8 February 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 List of golf courses in Canada#British Columbia. selectively, as noted. Star Mississippi 18:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of golf courses in British Columbia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Uses website refs. Only 3 entries have articles. List of brochure advertising articles. scope_creep^Talk 18:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Golf, Lists, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And List of golf courses in Canada as well. We're not a WP:DIRECTORY of such non-notable businesses and venues. Reywas92^Talk 18:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Only 9 on this list have their own article. Category:Golf clubs and courses in British Columbia They could easily be merged over to List_of_golf_courses_in_Canada#British_Columbia. Any without their own article should be eliminated. Dream Focus 20:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reference on that merge target are WP:PRIMARY as well. There is no merge target. scope_creep^Talk 20:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a valid navigational list because of all the links to related Wikipedia articles. Dream Focus 21:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the list entries are articled, except those small few. It is a advertising/promo list with WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS references. scope_creep^Talk

I mean to say it will be a valid navigational list article because all the links will be to related Wikipedia articles. I said 9 of them have their own articles, so merge these over to the other list, and eliminate non-notable entries from it. Category:Golf clubs and courses in Canada shows just how many articles there are total that can be listed there. Dream Focus 04:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTDIR, most of the entries are non notable. LibStar (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then remove the non-notable ones. Dream Focus 04:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of golf courses in Canada, merging ONLY blue link articles. Same deal applies to List of golf courses in Ontario and List of golf courses in Saskatchewan. Ajf773 (talk) 01:07, 2 February 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. Star Mississippi 18:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Macdonald (diplomat)[edit]

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

I created this article, however Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event." I consequently no longer believe that there is anything noteworthy about the subject's diplomatic career to necessitate its own article. Uhooep (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasoning of the primary author. Cullen328 (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable. And this one fails WP:BIO for lack of coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NBIO. Cabrils (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:23, 7 February 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. NYC Guru (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD was closed early by a NAC somewhat out of process, but I am "reclosing" this as a WP:SNOW delete. The sole opposer to deletion failed to use any amount of policy to support their argument. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Camilo Mosquera Hoyos[edit]

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

Can't find anything to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC, noting that the guideline explicitly states that such articles must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. My searches yielded no such coverage. I tried multiple variations of his name but only got significant coverage about other players with a similar name, such as Andrés Mosquera Marmolejo. Best sources I could find were FCF and El Universal, both trivial mentions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Colombia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Angelo (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can provide a reference to a reliable source devoting significant coverage to this person. Cullen328 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.transfermarkt.nl/andres-mosquera/profil/spieler/665930 Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE See Transfermarkt! Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.Delete no GNG, no SIGCOV. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. None can be found in the article and none is presented here. Transfermarkt.nl is an unreliable database source. Alvaldi (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks SIGCOV and fails GNG. Tails Wx 13:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally random player. Was created as an afterthought by a buddy on his team after creating an article about himself. Fails the WP:GNG as there is no WP:SIGCOV. gidonb (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence that the subject is notable Almeida Fernando (talk) 09:18, 4 February 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. WP:SNOW consensus is clearly against deletion. In a few months maybe we can re-assess the possibility of merging, but it’s impossible to judge for WP:SUSTAINED coverage right now. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TikTok Dabloons[edit]

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

This 'meme' trended for one month. It has no notably whatsoever. Wikipedia is not KnowYourMeme. Vamanospests (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does have an article in the TikTok fandom. Deleting this article would be fine. If everything TikTok was on here, there would be thousands of articles. ObeseParrot (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant lasting coverage, just typical nonsense from TikTok where literally anything can become a bizarrely popular trend for 3 seconds. Maybe, maybe merge into TikTok or something, but definitely not article-worthy. Dronebogus (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Internet memes? Seems to be at GNG, but I doubt it needs an article, could be a brief mention in another article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has WP:Three independent sources on it. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources in exactly one month, with one of them being the “here’s some random Internet crap” site Mashable? Dronebogus (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mashable is not a great source - but it's reference #4. The other three seem totally reliable (NYT, Guardian, Verge). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article cites dedicated coverage in NYT, The Guardian and The Verge. That's enough to meet WP:GNG. I'll also add Fortune, Insider, Polygon, CBC, Standard, The Gamer, The Sun... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What a world we are living in that “Tiktok Dabloons” [sic] are covered in the got-danged New York Times. Dronebogus (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's common for noteworthy sources to throw together articles about flash-in-the-pan memes these days. Does that mean Wikipedia should become a database of jokes that trend on one social media platform for exactly a month and then die out? Are we really saying that coverage makes this meme that nobody will ever talk about again notable? If this is all it takes for a meme to get a dedicated page then guidelines for notability need to be updated. Online publications chasing clicks with SEO should not be an indicator of notability. Vamanospests (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should make the notability guideline for memes much, MUCH stricter. Unless it’s talked about (or in extremely rare cases even used) years later, or breaks some kind of record, it doesn’t need an article. Memes are inherently ephemeral. Tiktok memes even more so because tiktok is meant for people with the attention span of a gnat. Dronebogus (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some other thoughts: “techie” news sources, even ones deemed reliable like Polygon or the Verge, are not relevant for determining notability on memes because it’s WP:ROUTINE coverage for them. And (this less objective criticism) NYT and Guardian are among the most respected news sources out there but they still run frivolous crap pieces to fill the metaphorical “slow news day”. Case in point. Dronebogus (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, aren’t we (okay, the keep voters) forgetting basic policies like WP:MILL and WP:SUSTAINED in the rush to turn this into a sourcing popularity contest (“it’s got 500 variably reliable sources from one week in November!”) Dronebogus (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Internet phenomena#Other phenomena. Leaving aside the elitist nonsense about “kids these days” and “memes can’t be notable” above, it is clear that this topic does not pass WP:SUSTAINED, as the coverage is only from a period of a single month. However, the level of sourcing present, including Newspapers of record like the New York Times, clearly showcases that this information is worthy of being preserved. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep - Subject meets WP:GNG, but per WP:NOTNEWS we should expect sustained coverage for an otherwise routine subject like a meme. However, because there's not much opportunity to demonstrate that sustained coverage (I wouldn't expect "retrospective" cultural coverage until at least a year later), I'd hate to delete this now. That said, I'm a little leery of the merge target; List of Internet phenomena has very few entries that don't have standalone pages. But I think that's what I would recommend anyway, unless a better merge target presents itself. Suriname0 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this discussion another round in light of a merger suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 14:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Internet phenomena#Other phenomena. A clear failure of WP:SUSTAINED despite its widespread coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1+ support for that, since it’s obvious there’s no consensus to delete and I wasn’t particularly sure where to merge in my original comment Dronebogus (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG, it's covered by an array of reliable sources as shown by Piotrus.★Trekker (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG, SUSTAINED complaints aren't relevant when sources are substantially in the last few months--really, that's a reverse-CRYSTAL complaint to presume it won't be notable in the future. Memes, I'm afraid, do have a ridiculous shelf life among all the un-cool people. The Most Interesting Man in the World is from 2006, and I still see it occasionally. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG 😎🙃 14:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still think SUSTAINED applies, it's going on three months now since this happened, if nothing has shown up in the last month, I think it's been forgotten about. Quick Google search shows the last hit of any kind was in December 2022. It's had three months to be talked about, and hasn't been in the last two months. This isn't the Dancing Baby or All Your Base memes that are still talked about 20 yrs later. Could be merged to the memes of the 2020s or something. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New York Times assigned two reporters who wrote a 14 paragraph article. Other reliable sources gave the fad significant coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With no prejudice towards a future AFD. My reading of WP:SUSTAINED is that while sustained coverage can be evidence of notability, a lack of sustained coverage is not necessarily evidence against notability. So close to the trend itself I don't know that I'm comfortable applying it, but I'm seeing articles from as recently as January 2023 in my search so I think it's a moot point anyway. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per ThadeusOfNazereth. The WP:SUSTAINED question is up for debate. But for now it's better to assume that this can be improved as the coverage continues. If a year passes and this turns out to be a footnote, then an AFD or merge discussion can address the right way to cover this. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Available sourcing, including the NYT!, means that this clears WP:GNG. As usual, topics like this can always be reassessed for merging within a a couple of years with the benefit of hindsight. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:05, 8 February 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 Rlendog (talk)

Hoverlay[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a company, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for companies. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH on their sourceability -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, with the exception of a single brief glancing namecheck of its existence in a very short CBS news story that isn't about it. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be the subject of a lot more media coverage than just one news blurb. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom, sources in the article are mostly from the company itself and talking about some "art exhibits" they've set up with VR. This is what I find in most sources, the company has an app that's used to make xyz virtual reality thing on the waterfront or wherever. No coverage in depth about the company. Delete unless we can find articles talking about the company. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't edit at the moment, but I intend on adding more sources from external news article mentioning Hoverlay, some include CBS, NBC, IT World Canada, and boston.com. Sola1ree (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.boston.com/culture/lifestyle/2019/05/16/augmented-reality-art-exhibit-greenway/

https://www.12news.com/video/news/local/valley/art-and-augmented-reality-make-the-perfect-combination-in-scottsdale/75-8a120cf0-e84b-4f0f-9e4c-692fca4144ab

https://www.itworldcanada.com/blog/disruption-nonprofits-should-embrace-it/443508

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/augmented-reality-rose-kennedy-greenway-art-project-conservancy-sheila-novak/ Sola1ree (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have many more, and you can find some at https://www.hoverlay.com/newsroom/ Sola1ree (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've fixed the "advertising" speech, feel free to make changes if some of the language seems inappropriate. Sola1ree (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find mentions of the product by this company but nothing that would support the un-referenced statements in this article. Also note that user Sola1ree has been blocked as an assumed COI. They are an evidenced SPA. Lamona (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines apply which requires references that discuss the topic (ie the *company*) in detail. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet all the criteria for establishing notability - at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Also, quantity of "coverage" isn't relevant - a million "mentions" or single-sentence descriptions does not meet the criteria, nor can multiple sources be combined. We just need two good quality independent sources that discusses the topic company in detail.

In this case, we don't have that. Most of the references are either primary sources from the company website, or mentions-in-passing when talking about one of the company's projects. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:54, 8 February 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This 4-item short and abandoned list has been tagged since 2015 with a warning that "the list presents item after item without objective published support, including selection of articles from the primary literature unsupported by source establishing their importance (thus constituting WP:OR)". I concur with that assessment, what we have here is an unnecessary ORishly named split from List of important publications in computer science. Concepts of "concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing" are related but there is no reason to group them together for purposes of such a list, which fails WP:LISTN in its narrow and ORish scope (we also don't even have an article on concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing). I'll also note that the article's structure suggests it's related to Dijkstra Prize - well, we have an article about that prize, and it can certainly list works that won it - we don't need a, hmmm, list of some works that won Dijkstra Prize and some works that some editors think should have won it (the current list is composed of four entries, two of which won that prize). Why didn't the creator include other winners, for example? This is pure, and unfinished, OR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Whoever created this monstrosity didn't bother to define "important". All the article states is "Some reasons why a particular publication might be regarded as important:". Also delete the other "List of important publications in xxx" linked in the "Important publications in science" template; from a random sampling, they all appear to be equally unsupported by sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Clarityfiend, all of whose comments I'd endorse. This really isn't how to construct an encyclopedia. Not a notable collection. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom and everyone else. Having important in a list article's title clearly represents a point of view. Hard to believe this has been an article for over a decade. Ajf773 (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajf773 And we have ~10 similar lists to deal with, just seartch for "list of important publications"...geology is discussed a bit below already. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:13, 2 February 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. Star Mississippi 18:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keyssa[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a company, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for companies. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH on their sourceability -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, with very little evidence of any GNG-building coverage about it in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I see are PR links, there's one Reuters story about an Apple exec joining the company. Nothing beyond that for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. I have removed the PR sources. Kmr719 (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is odd that this has become an article more than a year after the company's assets were transferred to Molex, to which Keyssa's former website also transfers, but that could perhaps be a WP:ATD target? There is also some information about a legal case at Essential Phone but that does not seem notable in itself. AllyD (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of the semiconductor industry is consolidation of important technologies into larger companies - there are very few small companies left, but the importance of the acquired companies lives on as these companies have built the technology base of the large semiconductor companies that remain todayhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_consolidation Kmr719 (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comment, more notable sources will be proposed shortly Kmr719 (talk) 01:29, 18 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 17:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa Kappa Pi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability or existence, very, very little in search results. Prior Angelfire (oof) link to "official" website is dead, no results when combined with Universidad Central del Este. Best I could find was a mention in some LinkedIn. Does not meet WP:GNG. Kazamzam (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dominican Republic-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article is unreferenced and my WP:BEFORE could not find sufficient sources demonstrating WP:NORG being met. VickKiang (talk) 07:44, 6 February 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Torres (American Politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a smalltown municipal councillor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, city or town councillors are not all "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the key to making a person at this level of political office notable enough for inclusion is to write a substantial article about his political significance (specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the community, etc.), referenced to a depth and range of coverage that suggests a credible reason to treat him as a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for town councillors.
But that's not what's here: this is essentially "he exists, so here's a bit of biographical trivia that has no bearing on notability at all", and it's referenced to just two pieces of run of the mill local coverage in the local media where local coverage of local town councillors is merely expected and his paid-inclusion wedding notice in the nearby big-city paper, which is nowhere near enough coverage. Bearcat (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. Bearcat (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nom. I was planning to AfD this myself on the same basis. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local politician fails WP:NPOL. Novemberjazz 03:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have not found anything that allows Torres to pass WP:NPOL. I think the author has had enough chances in this articles various incarnations to demonstrate notability and has not done so.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Never heard of him. NYC Guru (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely fails WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:37, 6 February 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mateos Cake[edit]

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

Despite the article being lengthy and containing 10 references, none of them contain any significant coverage and so there is no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. My searches found nothing and I tried "Mateo Cake" as an alternative too. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis - fails WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://int.soccerway.com/players/mateos-cake/292980/	Soccerway is a database site so does not add to WP:SPORTBASIC	✘ No
http://www.panorama.com.al/sport/baby-tirana-afrohen-6-te-rinj-tek-ekipi-i-gallos-nentori-nje-malore-per-bardheblute/	Mentioned once	✘ No
http://www.panorama.com.al/sport/kategoria-superiore-nisen-ndeshjet-e-javes-se-11-te/	Match report. Mentioned as making his debut and scoring a goal. Also mentioned in a quote but nothing else.	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/matches/2014/09/27/albania/league-1/ks-sopoti-librazhd/ks-butrinti-sarande/1701967/	See #1	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/matches/2014/11/08/albania/league-1/ks-sopoti-librazhd/ks-pogradeci/1702021/	See #1	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/national/albania/league-1/20142015/regular-season/group-b/g7135/	See #1	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20180318120258/http://sportal.al/nga-sopoti-ne-superiore/	Mentioned twice	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/matches/2016/02/20/albania/league-1/ks-shkumbini-peqin/ks-turbina-cerrik/2138938/	See #1	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20170129030033/http://sportal.al/lamellari-prapaktheu-vjen-edhe-cake/	Mentioned twice	✘ No
https://sportekspres.com/turbina-mbyll-merkaton-me-8-fishekzjarre-ne-cerrik-ndihen-super/	Mentioned once	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Agree with the source assessment table; all I find are articles about cake the food. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Angelo (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 02:53, 7 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 17:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh Attack on Nader Shah[edit]

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

Looks like a WP:POVFORK. Minor event which fails WP:NOTABLE being portrayed as some sort of battle. The creator of this article used a variety of non-WP:RS ("sikhwiki") and WP:RS which didn't even support the info in this article. Hari Ram Gupta, for example, calls this event "Sikhs rob Nadir's rear," page 54

As seen in Gupta's book and other sources, a lot of stuff happened during Nader Shah's invasion of India, that doesn't mean we should have an article of all it. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Iran, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had information from sikhiwiki added before but the person who reviewed it removed that information but forgot to remove the citation. Ronnie Macroni (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry what? --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
nevermind that but well for the strengths and casualties it is written in the panth prakash and twarikh guru khalsa book about that but I do think 250k troops is exageratted and is most likely around 50-100k. These books are really reliable and are one of the most astonishing books about sikhism. There is a youtuber also who has the name of twarikh guru khalsa. He stated the strengths and some more information and I got some of my information from there. Ronnie Macroni (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you suggest me how to make it better as this was my 2nd proper article made. Ronnie Macroni (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I really doubt these random books are reliable when you have been using non-reliable stuff such as "sikhwiki", sources that dont even mention the event, sources that mention the event but say something else (Hari Ram Gupta) and even start mentioning Youtubers. If you want to improve it, please see WP:RS and WP:SPS for starters. But as I said, this seems like a minor event, not even being a battle and thus not warranting an article. Though you can always prove me wrong. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok ill look at it thanks for understanding Ronnie Macroni (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect) as an unnecessary fork. We have an article on Nader Shah's invasion of India. An account of this battle based on reliable sources should be added there. Srnec (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:POVFORK. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Only one reference. This article fails to prove this attack ever happened. Valiaveetil (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC) (Sock strike — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Delete'. Another fake like Outnumbered Sikh battles. Only Jatt Sikh writers like cooking up macho claims like 10,000 Sikhs defeating 250,000 Afghans and Iranians. No real historian gives credence to this. 27.111.75.167 (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this article isnt good but why are you talking about my other article? I didn't add this battle their and I understand that this article was poorly edited nut Outnumbered Sikh battles is 100% real and why are you referencing it here? Ronnie Macroni (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Partly per the IP above (I was just at Outnumbered Sikh battles and had to rewrite the lead, it is bad) and per nom, and also searching for "Sikh Attack on Nader Shah" only pulls up stuff peripherally related to Sikhs or Nader Shah and forks and mirrors and bizarre Sikh propaganda outlets talking about this "battle". Also, an admitted "skirmish" is a war? Heavy Water (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you Ronnie Macroni (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also i found the strengths by a sikh youtuber who takes information from the book panth prakash and twarikh guru khalsa. I asked him but he never replied :( Ronnie Macroni (talk) 21:06, 5 February 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karuchola Vijay Kumar[edit]

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

Completing as per request of IP editor Fails WP:NPOL, bouncing back and forth to draft. Needs an AFD. I note that the sources used seem to be about someone called 'Maddula Radha Krishna' so we might be looking at a hoax here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A poorly-sourced article moved to mainspace after 2 AfC rejections of Draft:Karuchola Vijay Kumar. The article text describes a political party functionary with no clear claim to notability: even if verifiable from sources that were actually about this person, I don't see that the subject's party role(s) would be adequate for WP:NPOL. AllyD (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in English indicates notability. There may be sources in Telugu that would prompt me to reconsider. Mccapra (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NPOL. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all editors said above. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:07, 2 February 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Bessa[edit]

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

The Portuguese footballer of this name played 4 times in the second tier of Portugal then disappeared. A Portuguese search as well as other searches yielded nothing of note. I did find a few articles about the Brazilian footballer of this name - see Soccerway, Portal Cambé and Globo but he seems barely notable either. Certainly for the Portuguese footballer, I could find nothing towards WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG despite the brief pro career. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Angelo (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:32, 7 February 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

João Beirão[edit]

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

Given a reasonably lengthy semi-pro career on Soccerway, I thought that there would be some chance of finding something on him but, alas, I failed to find anything decent. Searches, including a Portuguese search, yielded plenty about Luaty Beirão, an Angolan rapper, but next to nothing about this footballer. The only source that wasn't a database site that I could find was Record, which is a transfer rumour. On its own, not enough for WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG, which require multiple sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Angelo (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:37, 2 February 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 and redirect to Virginia Tech. $Salvio giuliano$ 17:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fralin Futures[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Cannot find any in-depth coverage for these scholarships. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Virginia Tech. I don't see any coverage about this otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a scholarship initiated in 2019 at Virginia Western Community College. There are sources in local newspapers (this and this), but I do not believe that this rises to any level of notability. Something could be added to the VWCC page, but that would be only a sentence or two. What I do find interesting is that the benefactor here, Horace G. Fralin, has made significant donations to hospitals and museums, but has no WP article. If there is notability, I would think it would for Fralin. Lamona (talk) 20:03, 7 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 16:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Windust[edit]

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

Neither of the two references demonstrate significant coverage per WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Would have passed WP:NFOOTBALL prior to 2022 but that and WP:FPL are no longer relevant so articles must contain significant coverage. Best sources found in WP:BEFORE were The Inner Sanctum, I'm not sure if this is WP:RS or not and he is only mentioned twice in passing, Football NSW, which mentions him in passing as a goalscorer, and The Football Sack, which mentions him once, saying that he made his debut. None of the above sources contain any detailed coverage of Windust. An Australian search only yielded the usual database sites which are not acceptable for SPORTBASIC. Perhaps draft space can be considered if there is a super high chance of future notability? I would have moved this over myself but the article is over a year old so cannot be moved over except as a result of an AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this. This spiderone bloke is an absolute twat who for whatever reason has something against the A-League or the Central Coast Mariners.

The Central Coast Mariners compete in a professional football league, the top tier in Australia. They are notable. Anyone who plays for them are notable.

He made some reference to moving it to draft space depending on the “likelihood” of him becoming “notable” in the future. I’d say he’s notable now since he’s a regular player in the top tier of Australian football, but even if that isn’t “notable” enough, he’s an academy graduate from the Mariners who is continuing to build his professional career, so I’d say that’s pretty likely.

But in general, this is a joke and spiderone’s targeting of A-League players is a joke and completely against what Wikipedia is supposed to be, an encyclopaedia of knowledge on everything, including football.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt jobe watson (talk • contribs) 11:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a joke. We're questioning the notability of the article. Please sign your comments. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being an academy graduate and playing in the A-League has no relevance whatsoever for GNG or SPORTBASIC. Also, contrary to your comment, Wikipedia does not exist to have an article on absolutely everything. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Notability for inclusion of athletes articles on Wikipedia is coverage based, not participation based, so there is no inherit notability from playing in the A-League, or any other league for that matter. Alvaldi (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.Delete per Alvadi. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me - surprised there's nothing out there given he has multiple apps in Australia's top league. Giant Snowman 21:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I at least have the formatting for this page for when he inevitably pops up in some news article somewhere, or did you just go ahead and delete my work on him without saving that so I have to do it all over again? Cheers...

At the very least should've moved it to draftspace given it's ineligible he will be "notable" in time. Matt jobe watson (talk) 13:15, 10 February 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical Plastics Corp.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to fail GNG - The only actual coverage cited in article (and referenced in the previous AfD from 2014) are two NYT articles, one of which just has a quote from the company's chairman and the other is about a product developed by the company, not the company itself. All other sources are about products, catalog listings, or very brief passing references. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References fail WP:ORGCRIT. I found some book references for likely trademark claims and a few mentions in Newspapers.com, but nothing that adds up to significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to locate sufficient sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:20, 2 February 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 speedy delete (G11) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. --MuZemike 12:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Butlermations[edit]

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

Neither Butlermations nor Liam Butler come close to meeting Wikipedia’s notability criteria. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Contains no reliable sources ("Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." - WP:N) and the author also seems to have an undisclosed relationship with the subject of the article in question. EnIRtpf09b^{chat with me} 08:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 1 February 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numbered highways in Lake County, Ohio[edit]

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

Per past discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highways in Atascosa County, Texas and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of routes in Jefferson County, West Virginia - better handled in categories. There are former designations also noted here but they can be mentioned in pages like List of former state routes in Ohio (1–49). Also no text setting up what this is. Rs chen 7754 07:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Ohio. Rs chen 7754 07:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per thee aforementioned precedents. Imzadi 1979 → 08:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both precedent for these types of list has clearly been met, in favour of deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Categories and lists in the county article along with the former route lists better handle the need. Dough4872 11:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Roads may be listed in transportation by county articles but counties and municipalities are not important enough units for stand-alone articles on the roads that run through them. gidonb (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Relevant information about transportation in the county is better discussed in prose with appropriate context at Lake County, Ohio#Transportation, and the individual routes are better categorized via Category:Transportation in Lake County, Ohio. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:20, 3 February 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 De Waard. However, if editors feel that Ward#See also would be better, that is fine. Star Mississippi 18:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waard[edit]

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

Not a disambig page Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The footballer Raymond de Waard was misplaced: I've changed it to include a "See also" link to "De Waard", the surname held by a lot more people than him. Looking at nl.wiki's page nl:Waard suggests that the two geographic names are worth including in a dab page, not just partial title matches, so it is a valid disambiguation page. PamD 09:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Grote Hollandse Waard is not called simply Ward, same is the second one. Hence it is not a disambg page at all. We do not disambiguate phrases or long names that contain the word. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my contribution at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Netherlands#Waard dab page is at AfD. Erik Wannee (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Ward#See also, since this seems like an easy opportunity for a homophonic error. BD2412 T 17:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, if any, must be to De Waard surname. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different redirect targets proposed (along with a Keep and Delete).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to De Waard. per above.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 16:02, 3 February 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 Midnights. (non-admin closure) ASTIG 😎🙃 06:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Reader (song)[edit]

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

Note: This is not for literal "deletion" but also for other viable options such as "merge", "redirect", etc. Whereas the other Midnights tracks by Taylor Swift satisfy notability requirements (i.e. covered in third-party sources, appearing on charts--a lot of them, and getting certifications), this track does not stand out in terms of notability. The existing material is not enough to guarantee a standalone article. Ippantekina (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ippantekina (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Midnights: What reliable coverage is on the page is all about the album generally, and the only material specifically about this song is from unreliable sources such as Genius and Tunebat. Unless more reliable coverage specific to this song is found, I don't see a notability pass. The charting alone shouldn't be worth much given other songs from the album had even broader, more impressive chart runs, meaning it doesn't really stand out for that reason. QuietHere (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Midnights per WP:NSONGS when the only trustworthy publications that give this song more than a brief mention are album reviews or pieces that focus on a whole set of its bonus tracks. Chart peaks are irrelevant here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Midnights as per arguments above. ℛonherry☘ 16:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Midnights. Fails WP:NSONG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Midnights per all previous points. Has only gotten brief mentions and basically no coverage on its own. Ss112 10:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly, WP:NSONG states that being "ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)" The topic has indeed met this criterion (see here). Secondly, the topic has received significant coverage. Although news articles aren't solely about the song, they still provide more than just a passing mention meaning that WP:GNG is met (see insider & indiependent.co.uk). - GA Melbourne (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If all of a song's coverage is in the context of being part of the album, then generally that's the best way to portray it on Wikipedia too. It seems like virtually all sourcing present is just cherry-picked mentions from album coverage. Can you point to coverage that shows independent coverage/notability? Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Too meet GNG, "independent coverage/notability" is not required, rather "significant coverage" is required which "is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." - GA Melbourne (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, what I'm talking about is more related to WP:MERGEREASON. Things can meet the GNG and still be merged. (Though the Insider and the Independent is an exceedingly weak case for meeting the GNG too. Hopefully you have more than just that...) Sergecross73 msg me 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current coverage in the Independent and Insider are weak and rather cherry-picked. Also per NSONGS it seems GA Melbourne forgot this bit: "Note again that this (chart positions) indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable." Ippantekina (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, you could argue that all songs on Midnights shouldn't have articles (all songs in the standard version do). Every song there is referenced in articles that are about the album, not the song in particular. If that were the case, then basically only singles would have their own articles, which is not how it works. Dontuseurrealname (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing that I forgot to mention is that I actually had a draft that was declined for this same reason. It was a draft for the song "Daddy Issues" by The Neighbourhood, but the only mentions were passively (e. g. referring to the song in conjunction with other songs, or mentioning it without going into depth). Dontuseurrealname (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, songs like "You're On Your Own, Kid", "Snow on the Beach", "Labyrinth", "Mastermind" have sufficient third-party coverage (i.e. sources that discuss these tracks on their own and not part of album reviews--you can verify this in the articles). Others like "Midnight Rain" or "Vigilante Shit" appear on 10-15 charts, received certifications, and breaking into the top 10 of the Hot 100 is a notable feat. This track "Dear Reader" is a bonus and its chart performance is negligent compared to the rest of the album. What's more, the third-party coverage is not helping in this case. Ippantekina (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per my own comments above. Sergecross73 msg me 12:11, 6 February 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!} 21:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados–Spain relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I could not find significant third party coverage. The article is currently largely based on the Spanish Ministry of Foreign affairs website and the historical relationships section is uncited. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Spain, and Barbados. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is based on the website of the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, when searching for new sources, not much information is found. Franco98silva (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the article is about historical observations of Barbados by Spanish explorers, which isn't really in scope as it doesn't relate to diplomatic relations between the countries. The rest doesn't have much content except to note that the two countries don't even have embassies and it's entirely sourced to publications of the Spanish government, which aren't independent of the subject. This isn't surprising given that Barbados is a small country which isn't anywhere near Spain, the two countries don't have any particular historical/cultural links, and Spain isn't exactly a superpower these days. Hut 8.5 19:11, 2 February 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!} 03:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Penzance, Arizona[edit]

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

As the article implies, this is a rail location; an 1898 report states that the railroad operated a quarry here. No sign of a town, though. Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually quite a lot of there there, but I can't think of any reason why we should have an article about any of it, let alone this name at those exact coordinates. I assume we already have articles about St Josephs City, the Hopi reservation and the Navaho reservation. The power plant? Geronimo's? Those are all five to ten minutes from there. See previous remarks; based on memory and all the roads and buildings, I actually think it's arguably a settlement. But unless I have a lightbulb moment, I can't think of any reason to argue the point. If I don't come back to this, call my input a very weak delete on the rationale that just because we *could* host an infobox about it doesn't mean that we should.Elinruby (talk)`

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wasn't able to locate any sources supporting this was ever a populated place. This source calls it a "no-population town". Magnolia677 (talk) 11:26, 1 February 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. Star Mississippi 18:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Krutzen[edit]

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

Not meeting GNG or WP:MN. Sources are simple concert announcements or links to her performances. Does not appear to have gained critical attention, no charted singles, no media coverage, no musical awards won. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, England, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found reviews and discussion of her work online and at GScholar:

Online and GScholar sources

"Local harp star Heidi Krutzen puts strings to the solstice", The Georgia Straight, 2015 e.g. "Heidi Krutzen’s big Christmas present came early: a contract naming the Vancouver musician as the new principal harpist of London, England’s Philharmonia Orchestra. [...] There’s obvious spinoff potential, too, for Krutzen’s three Vancouver groups: the Krutzen/McGhee Duo, Trio Verlaine, and Couloir, her innovative duo with cellist Ariel Barnes."
"Couloir's Heidi Krutzen and Ariel Barnes return home for border-crossing VSO concert", The Georgia Straight 2019, e.g. "Although their duo Couloir formed in Vancouver, harpist Heidi Krutzen and cellist Ariel Barnes now find themselves working mostly in Europe, with Barnes having taken a position with the Nürnberger Symphoniker and Krutzen plying her trade with London’s Philharmonia Orchestra."
"Disasters of the Sun (CD Review)", CAML Review/Revue de l'ACBM, 2007, "The virtuosic eight-minute Commentia requires a performer who can respond to the work's substantial variety of textures and registral changes, as well as the extensive number of extended harp techniques. Harpist Heidi Krutzen tackles these passages with utmost aplomb."
"A Few Things Happened at Convention 2004", Flutist Quarterly (Vol. 30, Issue 1), "She and her harpist, Heidi Krutzen, played from their hearts. The new repertoire on their Thursday concert was gorgeous [Canzone di Petra by Underhill, and Taheke (Waterfall) by Farr] and made me buy their CD immediately. Their rendition of the Mozart Flute and Harp Concerto at the Gala Concert was the single most extraordinarily exquisite performance of that piece I've ever heard, and it was the talk of the convention." (etc)
"Stravinsky: Myths and Rituals 4, Philharmonia, Salonen, RFH", The Arts Desk, 2016, "The core of Orpheus is his dance-song for Hades’ tormented inhabitants, a homage to Bach’s cantatas and passions which is typically spare – perhaps the reprise shared between Jill Crowther’s cor anglais and harpist Heidi Krutzen, the dominant colourist of the work, was even more ineffable than the initial duet for two oboes"
"“Sing O Muse": Salonen explores Stravinsky inspired by Greek myth" Bachtrack 2016, "Heidi Krutzen’s performance on the harp was technically excellent and emotionally touching."
"Kindred spirits: Holst and Vaughan Williams paired by John Wilson and the Philharmonia Orchestra", Bachtrack 2017 "Luke Whitehead’s mellow contrabassoon and Heidi Krutzen’s expressive harp playing were beacons along the way to the work’s widescreen finale."
"An anniversary and a departure: Esa-Pekka Salonen and the Philharmonia", Bachtrack 2020, "Heidi Krutzen supplied gossamer chords on the harp."
"Classical: Sterling works from Couloir, Radvanovsky's Tosca prime musical events for fall" Vancouver Sun 2022, "As there aren’t that many harp/cello duos in the repertoire, Couloir has a sterling reputation for doing new works including, on this trio of concerts, Valeri Kitka’s Don’t Excite the Recollection, and a commission from almost a decade ago, Caroline Lizotte’s Close for Couloir."

At the WP Libary, there is also:

WP Library sources

A review of "Wine Dark Sea" in American Record Guide Jan/Feb2014, Vol. 77 Issue 1, p210, e.g. "These players (Ariel Barnes, cello & Heidi Krutzen, harp) are excellent in all respects and the recording is rich and full."
"More than The Nutcracker." Musical Opinion, Apr-Jun2022, p33-34, "I choose to celebrate: Heidi Krutzen, harp..."
Fanfare. May/Jun2020, Vol. 43 Issue 5, p346 "Ariel Barnes, cello, and harpist Heidi Krutzen perform as the duet Couloir. It is clear that while they bring some of their individual thinking to their playing, they are capable of having a shared sense of purpose in their interpretations. They are musicians of great sensitivity and superb technical abilities."
A review "Fin de siècle: the music of Debussy & Ravel" (Trio Verlaine) in Pan: The Flute Magazine Jun2009, Vol. 28 Issue 2, p50-51, "Lorna McGhee is joined on this CD by two excellent musicians: her husband, the viola player David Harding, and her long-term recital partner, the harpist Heidi Krutzen..."

And there appear to be more reviews for various works, so keep seems supported per WP:MUSICBIO, because she appears to be a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles, and the article can be further developed with the independent secondary coverage of her career over time, which also supports her WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above including articles in newspapers and magazines that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr. starship .paint (exalt) 12:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. This is essentially a resume lacking independent significant coverage of the subject to warrant a stand alone article, we refer to as a BLP? Added comments: The long list of supposed references above includes "the new principal harpist of London, England’s Philharmonia Orchestra" and that she belongs to three groups, the "Krutzen/McGhee Duo, Trio Verlaine, and Couloir", or another one that the subject plays for "London’s Philharmonia Orchestra". An interview (Couloir's Heidi Krutzen and Ariel Barnes return home for border-crossing VSO concert) does not advance notability. How about a posting to "Dear NFA members". Fanfare (magazine); harpist Heidi Krutzen perform as the duet Couloir, A review of "Wine Dark Sea", "Heidi Krutzen’s performance on the harp was technically excellent and emotionally touching." "Sing O Muse": Salonen explores Stravinsky inspired by Greek myth"), "Stravinsky: Myths and Rituals 4, Philharmonia, Salonen, RFH" provides passing mention, as with "An anniversary and a departure: Esa-Pekka Salonen and the Philharmonia ("Heidi Krutzen supplied gossamer chords on the harp." All of the added sources are basically the same. Maybe there is enough coverage in one of her groups to warrant a "group" article but a biography is meant to be more than a person's accomplishments, which would be personal information (like date of birth, where she is from, etc...), not just that she plays the harp (missing any awards), and where she plays it at. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my expansion of the article, she also appears to have notability supported per WP:CREATIVE because of her collective body of works with multiple reviews. Information about where she is from is in the article, her WP:DOB is not widely published, where she plays her harp is described and sourced (and there are more sources available, including on ProQuest, about her various performances). The different reviews from a variety of sources focused on various Philharmonia performances help show she is a 'reasonably prominent' member of this group, per WP:MUSICBIO, and the critical coverage of Trio Verlaine and Couloir seem to similary support her prominence in those groups as well.

I think it is expected that a BLP will focus on the subject's career and career development, because this is the focus of the coverage that makes them notable. She also apparently has won awards, but I have not fully tracked down all of the sources related to this - I think what has been developed from sources listed here and additional sources added to the article demonstrate significant secondary coverage over time to at minimum support WP:BASIC notability as a harpist. She is not notable for being born on a certain date or being from Vancouver, etc - she is the principal harpist for a notable orchestra and has a long career as a harpist with extensive critical reception. Beccaynr (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it appears Krutzen was a student of Judy Loman, per this WholeNote source, [13] i.e. Schafer composed seven major works for the harp, five of them for Loman and two for her students, Lori Gemmell and Heidi Krutzen. The CD, titled Ariadne’s Legacy, will be available from Centrediscs, the record label of the Canadian Music Centre but this seems to need some further research to help develop this aspect of the article, and there is another review of one of Krutzen's works with Trio Verlaine mentioned but not immediately available in a different WholeNote source [14] released their first CD Fin de Siècle – Music of Debussy and Ravel back in 2008 (reviewed in these pages by John Keillor in May of that year), and there is a WholeNote review not yet included in the article for a work that represents the results of the 2018 Azrieli Commission Prize and features B.C. duo Couloir, Heidi Krutzen (harp) and Ariel Barnes (cello), as soloists. [15]. Beccaynr (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of reliable independent sources to establish notability. Shawn Teller (talk) 05:36, 1 February 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. I'm closing this as No consensus because I see decent arguments on both sides of this discussion and not preponderance of "votes" on either side. I don't think an addition relist would resolve this divide. But there might be another visit to AFD in the future. This might not occur if editing/pruning suggestions in this discussion are followed up on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in geology[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No clear criteria of what counts as a "important publication". Vast amounts of the list is unsourced. The previous discussion, which closed as "keep" in 2011, did not adequately address the WP:Indiscriminate concern. Foundational works in geology already have a place in the History of geology article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is in fact clear criteria at the top of the article. Topic creator – A publication that created a new topic, Breakthrough – A publication that changed scientific knowledge significantly, Influence – A publication which has significantly influenced the world or has had a massive impact on the teaching of geology. Dream Focus 12:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions and list of Lists-related deletion discussions. . Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that this article is not notable and note that there are several similar articles that should be brought here if this discussion leads to deletion. --Bduke (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No clear inclusion criteria. See also Lists of important publications in science Mucube (talk • contribs) 01:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither useful nor notable. This lacks any clear definition as to what is an "important publication" and, thus, does not indicate how to determine what belongs on this list and what does not. Paul H. (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I pointed out in the previous deletion discussion for this, which by the way ended in Keep, the requirements for inclusion are clearly listed at the top of the article. Other articles like this were up for deletion at the same time. Everyone listed has a link to their own Wikipedia article and/or a reference. Dream Focus 12:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Rename per the rationale below~~ The inclusion criteria suffer from being ill-defined and highly subjective and anything that meets them would be better served being included in an article about the history of the subject that publication is about. For example, Agricola, Georgius (2004) [1546]. De Natura Fossilium would be better served being included in an article about the history of mineralogy. In fact, the vast majority of entries on the list have their own articles already. -- Licks-rocks (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They have their own articles, so they can be grouped on a list that aids in navigation. Changing the word "important" to "notable", might work out better. Dream Focus 15:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*:One suggestion I see mentioned in a previous discussion about this is to drop "important" from the title. I would support this suggestion, because it removes the value judgement. Anything included in such a list would have to be independently E to qualify for inclusion, however, Licks-rocks (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as an indiscriminate coatrack article. The listed publications are covered in the articles on the respective topics, and the vast gulf of options that Dreamfocuses "scope" gives would lead to every new article published being required to be included here.--Kev min § 15:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 17:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly does not meet WP:NLIST.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No denying that this would be a useful and encyclopedic article if it had solid inclusion criteria. The tried and true approach to lists of "notable" things is whether they have their own article. Look at List of important publications in mathematics; could do with some weeding, but a fair number of these entries are articles in their own right. I'd hold out for that threshold. (Come to think of it, many of the lists collected under Lists of important publications in science would fail this. Some work needed her.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As per the reasoning of Kevmin above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I don't think having poor inclusion criteria are a reason, by itself, for deletion. That could be fixable. However, per WP:LISTN, I cannot find reliable sources that discuss this (or similar) set of papers as a group. I've found a number of RS for a list of top journals in geology, and bibliographies of specialized geology topics. @Dream Focus: if you could find multiple RS that support the notion of "important publications in geology" (over the whole field), I would flip and argue for acceptance. — hike395 (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps call it list of publications significant in the study of Geology. What I added [16] was a referenced mention of a book used as the standard college textbook for the subject for decades, and a reference to a guy who was "The Founder of Modern Geology", his publication notable in this field. I'm hoping some Geology will mention if any of these guys or books were taught about in college. Did these publications get a significant award from those who give out awards for such things? Did scientific organizations list them on their required books list when they came out? Dream Focus 14:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I think a geology textbook would be the right place to look for a summary of all the important publications but I'm afraid that might still run headlong into WP:SYNTH unless it contains a literal list of important geology publications.

I think your best chance would be a database of some kind, but I can't think of any that would list important publications only.

I must point out that this list, in some form or another, is probably a good idea. I just worry that Wikipedia's rules don't necessary leave space for it if it doesn't already exist somewhere outside wikipedia. Licks-rocks (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for three reasons:

The relevant notability guideline: Quoting WP:LISTN A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, this list meets the relevant notability criteria. (User:LadyofShalott lists three in the earlier AFD)
Existing consensus at the last AFD still applies.
WP:ATD While consensus above seems to be split on inclusion criteria suitability, that is an editing discussion and WP:ATD directs us to not delete if the issue is that the article can be improved = i.e. this is not a reason to delete. CT55555(talk) 23:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Existing consensus is over a decade out of date now, hence here we are again, and are in no way obligated or forced to give credence to the prior AFD if there is concern in the here and now. As already noted this article fails per [[WP:WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:coatrack, and a lack of any actual coverage of this outside of this article.--Kev min § 15:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After a lengthy first nomination, the consensus for keeping the article in that discussion still stands but also per WP:L, WP:LISTN, WP:LSC. GR86 (📱) 00:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've changed my !vote to keep after reading the comment from CT55555 and reading the previous AfD. There are four references that support the topic, hence this article passes the list notability criterion. These four references were previously buried in "Further Reading", but I brought them up to the lede and made them inline citations.
- Per the Talk comment by RockMagnetist, this article would be more acceptable if it were titled Bibliography of geology.
- As noted by several editors above, the current list inclusion criteria are very subjective and needs to be cleaned up. I would propose new criteria: for a paper to be included in this bibliography, it either should be
  1. A subject of a Wikipedia article whose notability is established by multiple RS, or
  2. Appears in multiple bibliographies of notable geology papers.
- I'm going to be WP:BOLD and start to use these criteria and cleanup the article. I'll also notify the Bibliography WikiProject to see if anyone there wants to help.
- I think part of why so many editors dislike this bibliography is that it is heavily skewed to papers before plate tectonics. This would be like having a bibliography of physics where the papers were drawn before 1650 (Newton). Does anyone know of a good bibliography for modern geology papers? — hike395 (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Another fixable issue: many of the entries in this bibliography have unreferenced commentary explaining the importance. This is likely due to the previous list criteria (which I have now removed from the article). This unreferenced commentary can now be removed. — hike395 (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - What specific Four references are you going by? (Considering that refs 1 and 2 are the same reference) and what explicit criteria are being used to make this NOT a indescriminate coatrack, and given that "Geology" is a vast super umbrella in which "important" to paleobotanists will irrelevant to volcanologists, will be noted but meh to paleochronologists.--Kev min § 15:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kevmin: I've placed this at the top of the Talk page:

To be included on this stand-alone list, each entry should meet the following list criteria:

This list contains notable publications in geology. A publication should appear in this list if

It is a subject of or topic in a Wikipedia article supported by multiple reliable sources, or
It appears in multiple bibliographies on influential or notable publications in geology

I'm in the middle of trimming down the bibliography -- right now, it only consists of papers that are topics of (or within) Wikipedia articles. It contains foundational papers for topics such as plate tectonics and QAPF diagrams. By restricting entries to be on multiple general bibliographies, I expect only foundational papers will survive the filter. — hike395 (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreaciate that massive changes to the article are preceded by discussion in the talk page. Lappspira (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a relic of an earlier era of Wikipedia-writing, but it's eminently salvageable. The inclusion criteria suggested above are sensible to me. The alternative title "Bibliography of geology" is also snappier. XOR'easter (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This may be notable, but it's pure WP:OR for us to decide what constitutes an important publication. In my field of sociology I am aware of several lists of important publications (ex. this one). There are various ways of adding such information to Wikipedia: it can be mentioned in an article in a given work in the section about its reception or influence, some rankings may be independently notable, and such sources might even show WP:LISTN being met for a, well, list of important publications in sociology I guess. But we need to start with sources first. This list, unfortunately, is not based on sources but on original research and as such it merits WP:TNT approach. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inclusion criteria can be refined. One point could be for works that achieve one or various bibliometric thresholds are made notable (e.g. Microtectonics of 2005) and another criteria could be works that have been written about at some length or otherwise celebrated. Lappspira (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we are still figuring out what (WP:ORish?) inclusion criteria to use, the case for WP:TNT is stronger and stronger... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider article after major changes made to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it seems better, but there are still chunks without references. Simply saying a publication is "important" doesn't really help. Needs critical discussion for each item, or this is just a wall of text. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And even when referenced, this is still a mess with works like "Playfair, John (1802). Illustrations of the Huttonian theory of the Earth", which provides the following explanaiton for why the work is presumably important: "Hutton's book is widely regarded as unreadable, and may have remained obscure if not for this work by the brilliant prose stylist John Playfair." The sentence is cited, but seriously, nothing in the cited passage suggest this red-linked work is important. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could the referenced content be merged into History of geology perhaps, as a WP:ATD? MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:36, 6 February 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 consensus from established editors. If someone wants this to work on in Draft, I'm happy to provide. Star Mississippi 18:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alliances formed by left-wing parties in the states of India[edit]

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

The article cannot be possibly attributed to reliable sources, and based on original theories and conclusions. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC); Possibly a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of separate articles (Left Democratic Front, Left Front (Tripura), Left Front (West Bengal)). Similar content also discussed in a separate AfD almost 3 years ago.12:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep it : Wikipedia reviewer User:Onel5969 has already reviewed the page and told me to add more citations and then I added many citations and informed him and then he did not raise objection against it. This article contains information derived from many reliable sources and wikipedia pages, no speculations by me. Editors should add more citations to the page if required. User:XYZ 250706 — Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides I have added some more citations today. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This comment about a review is disingenuous. Onel5969 most assuredly interacted with this article, once to send it back to Draft space, and a couple more times to tag it for deficiencies. This message is to draw the closing admin's attention to the edit history and to ask them to compare it with this comment. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent Yes, I added citations and submitted draft. Then one day I got a notice that the draft has been reviewed and from then no objection has been raised against it. Left parties are part of government in 4 states (Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Bihar and Jharkhand) and previously ruled WB, Assam and Tripura. So they are well notable. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Please understand that AfD is a full and formal review of this or any other article. This is where the community decides. Any comment by any individual editor is always superseded by the community's view. Your talk page shows that this was draftified. That is the review you speak of, again disingenuously. In other words it was not ready. While you were technically entitled to move it from Draft to Main space on 11 December 2022 rather than await an AFC review, this subjected the article to community scrutiny. This process is that scrutiny. This process is that objection. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not a great fan of the way the title is written, but a page about alliances between leftwing political parties in India seems to be both encyclopedic and self-evidently notable. The latter because it is clearly something that the media routinely discuss. JMWt (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ :- Here is the opinion of User:Shakya2007 in Talk:Alliances formed by left-wing parties in the states of India#Opinion about this Left Wing alliance article. XYZ 250706 (talk) 9:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC) (strike duplicate !vote — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]
@XYZ 250706: While likely added in good faith, this is functionally equivalent of canvassing and does not stregthen the arguments for keep. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn I did not perform canvassing now, I only added one editor's comment on the article talk page. XYZ 250706 (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DaxServer What is the meaning of duplicate vote?? XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may not express the formal opinion for retention nor deletion more than once, though you may make other comments. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ needs major editing, conflates left-wing alliances with the various CPM-Left Front incarnations, the latter being a subset of the former, but nevertheless there's no end to the reliable sourcing available on this subject that begins with the Freedom Movement itself. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm here after the nominator's ping, It needs to be edited in good manner. Left-wing had ruled various states for years, so it would be nice if this article is Live. But it should be edited. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Disclosure: I have been asked to come here by the nominator, but they have not sought to influence my opinion. I do not see this as canvassing within the project's rules
This article is troubling. It appears to be WP:SYNTH, with many disparate sources, many of which are not RS, and which are Primary, brought together in order to reach a conclusion, though the conclusion is left to be drawn by the reader.
I feel an article on the topic is merited and has a place, but that this article is in need of WP:TNT in order to remove any hint of Synthesised Original Research.
I see at least one other person offering an opinion that the article's writing is not appropriate.
I am concerned that a number of the keep !votes so far have a rationale that can only be distilled into WP:ILIKEIT. I would rather see policy based arguments
While AfD is not cleanup, this could be a useful subject for WP:HEY, though I feel the article should be rewritten from the facts in references which have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the topic
tl;dr summary: The topic may be valid, but this article, as written and referenced is not 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For clarity, my !vote is not based upon the reliability or otherwise of the references. They are not all reliable and at least one is a 404 error, but that is not even important. I could perform a full source analysis, which would be arduous and pointless.

Even were 100% of the references to be significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the fact they reference, the collection of all these references coupled with the way this article is written is Synthesised Original Research. This renders this article written in this manner unsuitable for Wikipedia. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alliances made by leftist political parties in India could be a notable topic, but as things stand, I have synthesis concerns; I don't see how any of the sources cited constitute an overview of the topic, and while numerous scholarly sources discuss Left-wing politics in India, I'm unaware of any that enumerates the very many alliances made and unmade. I don't think the article as it stands is viable, and would suggest a merge to articles about specific elections in each state (for instance; merge the Rajasthan section to 2008 Rajasthan Legislative Assembly election), and then redirect to Politics of India, until someone writes Left-wing politics in India. @Goldsztajn: I think your comment is correct in principle, but does not account for the state of the source material; I don't believe there are sources that exhaustively list all such alliances. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde I feel that all of the citations have been given the overview now. When your commented there was 5-6 citation which had no proper overview. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Again disingenuous, and not correct. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent I am trying to say that when Vanamonde commented there was 5-6 citation which had no proper overview and after he said that I have added that. XYZ 250706 (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93 More alliances in other states will definitely be added. Actually other editors should contribute to the article with correct information and citations. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that you don't have any sources discussing the topic as a whole; that is, none of your sources are examining the phenomenon in general. That may work for papers in academia, but it does not work on Wikipedia, because we prohibit original research. Your sources are discussing specific alliances. These are acceptable sources to use in articles about the parties involved, or the elections, which already have a clearly defined scope, and where notability is not in question. That is not the case here. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment striking my !vote per comments from Timtrent and Vanamonde93, both raise valid points and (reasonably) shift the discussion towards TNT. Sitting on the fence for the moment, I will relook. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sure, the article needs some polishing and more reliable sourcing, but the subject is pretty notable in Indian politics and should be kept. Ok123l (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Onel5969, this appears to be a canvassed !vote, I've warned the editor. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:TNT, I moved it to draft because I felt that it had possibilities, but was full of synth and OR. Was moved back, but the same problems still existed, which I tagged, the tag was removed, I replaced it, it was removed again. Could this be a valid article? Perhaps. I do not know enough about the subject to state categorically one way or another. What I do know is that the current incarnation, while better than the original draft, still violates WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I would normally say return to draft, but would think that would be appropriate if the codicil is added that it cannot be moved back to mainspace without AfC review. Also, I was pinged to this discussion by nom, unsure whether or not that was canvassing, since I am unsure if they pinged every editor who touched the article or not. However, some canvassing is going on by User:XYZ 250706, such as the comment directly above mine, and at least one of the other keep !votes attest, having never edited the article prior to this discussion.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since I am concerned that people are invited to come here and offer opinions, I have added {{Not a ballot}} to the head of the discussion. As I stated when offering my own opinion I was also invited offer my own view. I doubt the editor inviting me had a clue what my view might be, though. I am hoping they simply trusted me to give a policy based view. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the current article is a mess, and I'm worried that it might not be easily salvageable... The article essentially emerges in the back-drop of the AfD on Left Front (India). It is ridden with recentism, and does not portray evolution of united front politics in India in the lens of an encyclopedia. A better approach would be to 1) improve Communism in India article, talking about the historical evolution of the Indian communist movement, 2) possibly build an article on united front politics in India, I suggest Rao, M. V. S. Koteswara (2003), Communist Parties and United Front as a starting point. And not just list number of candidates state-wise, but actually talk about the historical and broader implications of alliance-building. 3) write articles about electoral campaigns of parties election-wise, like an article on campaign of [foo] party in [foo] year election (including whatever alliances and seat-sharings were done for said election). --Soman (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman Are you able to offer a formal "keep/delete/merge/redirect/etc" opinion in addition to your comment, please? This will aid the eventual closing admin. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article name is too long and discriptive, The Article name should be changed to Left Front (India) or LDF (India) Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk)— Preceding undated comment added 26 January 2023, 17:33 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I note this diff where the nominator has added text to their deletion rationale. My feeling is that this woudl be better placed in a comment. We are too far into this deletion discussion for fiddling about with the deletion rationale. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent@Goldsztajn@DaxServer@Misterrrrr@JMWt@Cyberbot I@JMWt@Onel5969@ The article does not say about national level left front clearly. Now state level alliances are added only. I think the article needs proper edition but not deletion. XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My opinion is unchanged. WP:SYNTH. WP:TNT is still required. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This seems to me to be news commentary, not suitable for a Wikipedia article. Nwhyte (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional input from editors who were not canvassed to the discussion would be very helpful in determining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've given this more thought and, to reiterate, the article conflates CPM and its various electoral front incarnations with left-wing politics in general. While there is more than adequate reliable sourcing on both electoral alliances in general and left-wing alliances specificially from the Freedom Movement onwards, this article does not address those in any form. There are elements of redundant forking and syth in the article. There's material that is just plain incorrect (how are the possibly 22 seats attributable to the "left front" following the 1st Lok Sahba election?). It's not salvageable in the present state. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along same lines as Goldsztajn. The article subject inevitably invites to SYNTH. I can't think of any reputable third party source that adequately deals with this subject as a whole, and with the risks of recentism the article difficult to salvage. --Soman (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is unnecessary and any important information can be included in related articles. Sahaib (talk) 22:12, 7 February 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!} 03:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wuhan French International School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Could not find significant third party coverage for its English, French or Chinese names. Sources provided are mostly primary. For example, from AEFE just a directory listing [17] and [18] LibStar (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unless significant non-English coverage can be provided. I found a couple pieces of seemingly WP:ROUTINE coverage but nothing else. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Zhang, Qin 张芹 (2014-10-29). "武汉首所法国国际学校成立" [The first French international school in Wuhan was established] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2023-02-01. Retrieved 2023-02-01.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "The first French international school in Wuhan was established in the Wuhan Economic and Technological Development Zone on the 29th. French Ambassador to China Maurice Gourdault-Montagne attended the ceremony. The school is mainly aimed at the children of Chinese-French people, providing them with a full education before university. ... It is reported that Wuhan French International School has set up a "one-stop" education system from kindergarten to high school to provide pure French-style education for the children of foreigners in Han. The school covers an area of 30,000 square meters and can accommodate 300 students covering preschool education, primary school, junior high school and high school at the same time."
2. "Wuhan French International School". China Daily. 2019-06-17. Archived from the original on 2023-02-01. Retrieved 2023-02-01.
  The article notes: "Wuhan French International School (EFIW) was the first international school to have registered at the Department of Education of Hubei. ... The school, the major French school open to foreign students of all nationalities in Central China, opened in September 2008. The French Consulate in Wuhan supported the school's opening."
3. "EFIW to be the major French school in central China". People's Government of Wuhan City [zh]. 2020-03-16. Archived from the original on 2023-02-01. Retrieved 2023-02-01.
  The article notes: "The EFIW is the first international school to have registered at the Department of Education of Hubei. Located in the Wuhan Economic and Technological Development Zone, the school offers French education to foreign students from ages 2 to 17. Not only will they study French courses, they will also have courses in Chinese and English, allowing them to have a multicultural overseas education experience."
4. Peng, Yanhong (2018-03-26). "Les écoles internationales sont fortement implantées dans la zone de développement de Wuhan" [International schools have a strong presence in the Wuhan] (in French). People's Government of Hubei Province [zh]. Archived from the original on 2022-12-11. Retrieved 2023-02-01.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "The French International School of Wuhan (EFIW) was created in September 2008. It is open to all, children of French expatriates as well as French-speakers, and also provides support from kindergarten to high school. According to the president of EFIW, the school currently has 85 students, mainly from countries such as France, Brazil and Algeria."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wuhan French International School (French: Ecole Française Internationale de Wuhan, EFIW; simplified Chinese: 武汉法国国际学校; traditional Chinese: 武漢法國國際學校) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons that Cunard noted. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. starship .paint (exalt) 07:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:52, 6 February 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 Grasshopper Pueblo. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grasshopper, Arizona[edit]

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

An unused tank, a corral or two, and a house-ish building are the only things that show up for this place over decades. I can't find any info on the place but all evidence is that it was/is a ranch, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 90 percent sure it's this archaeological site? https://uapress.arizona.edu/book/grasshopper-pueblo I think? I have to go into a meeting soon but will try to correlate coordinates when I get out. jengod (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: GNIS alone cannot be used to prove that a place is actually populated. The only thing I could find is this article, but it's unclear if they're referring to this place or a different place. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's been a populated place since the 14th century. It can be deleted as a populated place but from what I can tell Grasshopper Ruin was the site of University of Arizona Archaeological Field School for several decades. There's probably an article to made about historic Grasshopper Pueblo but it's not a town per se.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30247567 jengod (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah based on the map in the above Jstor I would think we should create a stub and redirect Grasshopper, Arizona to Grasshopper Pueblo jengod (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Created a draft at Draft:Grasshopper Pueblo, ~~my vote is Delete until the draft can be published~~. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 03:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK FWIW Draft:Grasshopper Pueblo is still just a start but it has 9 solid sources and it covers the history of the ruin and some of the archaeological work done there. Cheers jengod (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grasshopper Pueblo; I salvaged the coordinates and the elevation out of GNIS. jengod (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Props to Jengod (talk · contribs); I was wondering about that. Elinruby (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grasshopper Pueblo with firm handshakes all around. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 22:36, 1 February 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!} 03:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

La Verpillière station[edit]

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

Was tagged for two weeks for notability, without improvement, after which it was sent to draft for improvement. Then it was objected to being sent to draft, using an WP:OSE argument. As per DRAFTOBJECT, was returned to mainspace, and now we are here. Not enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG or WP:VERIFY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for some reason the English article wasn't linked to all other language wikis, which I've just done. The FR wiki article has sourcing from two book chapters that describe stations built about this time period; I think it's GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree. Easily passes the GNG; the French article shows obvious scope for expansion. Not sure what the hurry is here. Mackensen (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Easily meets GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to see the reasons behind this seemingly inconsistent approach in removing this article yet not touching countless others with the same level of "in-depth" (or the lack thereof) sourcing - I offered, in our initial discussion, just a small list of articles on nearby rail stations just in the department of Isère and nearby (such as Grenoble station, Albertville station, dozens others in that area only), which happily exist on Wikipedia for years (over a decade even in some cases) without being threatened. I actually modelled my article on one of those. Tagged as stubs, fair enough, but not as candidates for deletion. Either there is a consistent approach, or it's all arbitrary, which does not help. DanX (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And as I already explained to you, that's an WP:OSE argument. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:DanX is correct in their comments. The guideline(?) or tirade(?) or snide(?) dismissal of stating "other stuff exists is not a valid argument" is itself not valid. It was maybe expedient in Wikipedia's infancy in the 1950s or whenever, but by now Wikipedia is well-enough developed that it is useful and fair to point to issues of consistency (although i don't really fault Onel5969 for citing it, because it is weirdly still accepted. Methinks an RFC or at least an essay is needed towards shutting that down. E.g. it should be an accepted result of an AFD to determine "do not delete at least for now, because there are more extreme cases which should be addressed first. In the future it should be less murky where the line should be drawn." --Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST and the above. gidonb (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the French article demonstrates that this meets GNG. Also, WP:NEXIST is an official guideline. --Rs chen 7754 05:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rschen7754. starship .paint (exalt) 07:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:08, 5 February 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 Rock Paper Shotgun. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Walker (journalist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/John Walker (journalist)

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

Lack of notability as per WP:BIO. Subject is one of four founders of a popular website, but no other significant work. Sources are subjects own articles or Twitter conversations. Suggest redirect to the website page Rock Paper Shotgun instead. Slartifartfast (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator has made no other edits outside of this topic. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rock Paper Shotgun: Doesn't seem independently notable. I checked WP:JOURNALIST here as well but I don't see evidence that he meets any of those pillars either. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with the redirect. The site is more notable then he is I think. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With my comment out of the way, I looked into this: a redirect to Rock Paper Shotgun seems like the best option. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am greatly hindered in doing research on this because the RPS and the gamasutra sites have the WORST cookie options I have run into in ages - not allowing you to reject ad or matching-across-site cookies. I'm appalled that folks claiming to propose open rights in one area are more invasive than every other site I have approached lately. Lamona (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rock Paper Shotgun. Redirecting to this is our best bet.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:25, 7 February 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pathologist (disambiguation)[edit]

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

No disambiguation page needed, only one meaning. Onlk (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Onlk (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Near-miss G14, after Pathologist (band) was deleted by AfD. Again, could have been handled through WP:PROD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not needed, because pathologist redirects to pathology. Cullen328 (talk) 19:26, 1 February 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. No consensus to delete. The main disagreement here seems to be over whether DCEU and DCU need to be two separate articles, which is an editorial dispute and not a matter for AFD. Consensus seems, in any case, firmly in favour of the split. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DC Universe (franchise)[edit]

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

It is not clear that there will be a new franchise after Aquaman and The Lost Kingdom. Gunn and Safran refer to upcoming 2023 DCEU films as part of DCU despite a timeline reset with The Flash (https://www.polygon.com/23579802/james-gunn-dc-slate-movies-tv-animation-gaming-explained), (https://www.dc.com/blog/2023/01/31/james-gunn-and-peter-safran-on-building-a-new-dc-universe). This article was also created while a renaming of DC Extended Universe to DC Universe (film series) was still under discussion under the same name when the creator should have waited, he then renamed it to this. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The DC Universe is not a separate new franchise, it is a successor to the old DCEU, as James Gunn said, The Flash will reboot the universe, but it will still be in the same main universe, considering that one of the TV series announced is Waller with Viola Davis and the Peacemaker cast returning. MetropolisKnight (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just like to point out that a “successor” is different from its predecessor. If it were the same it would be a continuation.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: James Gunn never said Flash and Aquaman were part of the DCU. He simply said they would lead into his slate of films by virtue of Flash rebooting the continuity, and he specifically denoted Blue Beetle as a movie that was standalone enough that it didn't interfere with the existing DCEU and could potentially be retroactively integrated into the new DCU slate. Not to mention everything Justice League adjacent in the slate such as Superman Legacy, Brave and the Bold and Lanterns essentially solidifies this is a reboot because it is entirely dissociated from the existing incarnations of these characters and organizations.

Waller is also specifically talked about by Gunn as treating all the events of The Suicide Squad and Peacemaker as if it took place in a "rough memory" of what the old DCEU was, and it seems like a very purposeful wording in the event they decide to slot in his Suicide Squad characters while changing the events of their prior appearances in order to suit the new canon. He also repeatedly used terms like "new canon" when discussing that everything from Creature Commandos onwards was properly connected to other projects and part of their overarching Chapter 1 story.

Evertything he's basically said thus far about the DCU's relationship to the old DCEU insinuates this is the start of something completely seperate and not just a rebranding of the DCEU. It wouldn't make sense that they just rebrand an existing franchise while completely disregarding its canon and starting from scratch on essentially everything. It sounds strange on paper considering there's never been a franchise-wide restart of this scale before when it comes to shared universe models, but that's what this is. Not to mention this isn't even new for DC because they do this for comics all the time. It wouldn't make sense to slot these films in the existing DCEU article because it would just be confusing to follow when suddenly like 13 films in Superman is played by a completely different actor, and its story doesn't even acknowledge that Man of Steel ever happened, and same with Batman because everyone fully recognizes something like Reeves' film as a reboot despite the fact it may have started as a DCEU project. RebelYasha (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He said Shazam has always been off kind of in his own part of the DCU so he connects very well... That moves directly into The Flash, a fantastic movie that […] resets the entire DC universe, and then [...] into Blue Beetle, about a kid who’s a marvelous part of the DCU, and then into Aquaman 2. I don't know how much more clear he can get to imply it beyond calling DCEU films as DCU. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All these quotes about Shazam and Aquaman "connecting well" are clearly a blanket PR statement because Gunn can't outright confirm that those films would have basically no relevance to what he's doing because he doesn't want to take away from their marketing and basically tell people they don't have to watch those movies. If he actually had a plan for those characters beyond their immediate films, they would've 100% shown up or be more than just passive mentions in his slate presentation, which was basically devoid of all of those characters (including Wonder Woman). He even addressed the rumors of Momoa being transitioned to Lobo after Aquaman 2 and still played it extremely close to the chest. If Momoa was clearly coming back as Aquaman he probably would've said that specific character has a future beyond Lost Kingdom in the immediate next slate of films.

Same exact thing happened with Dwayne Johnson claiming that him and DC would continue "exploring ways in which Black Adam could be used in future DC multiverse chapters" despite the fact Black Adam is clearly not getting any sort of sequel with him involved, especially taking into consideration the fact it would've led into a Henry Cavill crossover means nothing anymore now that said actor has departed Superman.

Gunn's not going to outright confirm the status of certain characters or actors getting new projects in the current canon until it's been long enough to the point he can officially address his plans in full. That's also likely why the slate he revealed yesterday was only about half of all the Chapter One projects, and coincidentally also exclusively focused on entirely new, or rebooted characters. If he's dropping Cavill from Superman and casting a completely seperate Batman that isn't related to either Affleck or Pattinson, in addition to doing a completely seperate Supergirl film that's unrelated to the character's appearance in Flash, what is stopping him from just going all the way and recasting the entire Justice League? Waller and Peacemaker S2 will probably function as apertifs between the two continuities, but the fact he refers to Superman as the "true start" to the main narrative basically confirms he's using those earlier projects to transition into the new canon, and then everything onwards is a completely new ball game. RebelYasha (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are bold claims but you're not giving direct references. Please cite the sentences where he states this, and see my comment below where he states explicitly today that he his not rebooting the DCEU. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The interview where Gunn talks about Waller's relationship to Peacemaker and Momoa's Aquaman status

https://gizmodo.com/james-gunn-dc-slate-info-flash-aquaman-justice-league-1850051467

Gunn INSISTING that Waller is a DCU show and not set in the DCEU to another user on Twitter

https://www.reddit.com/r/DCEUleaks/comments/10roln2/gunn_insists_creature_commandos_and_waller_are_in/

Gunn sharing a liked post on his IG story that clarifies Shazam, Flash, Blue Beetle and Aquaman as taking place in the "old DCEU" and not being a part of the canon that begins with Creature Commandos

https://www.reddit.com/r/DCEUleaks/comments/10rcg8g/james_gunn_liked_and_shared_this_post_in_an_ig/ RebelYasha (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is clearly intended to be a reboot with the vast majority of the films not being connected to the DCEU. Just because The Flash will lead up to the reboot doesn't mean it should be grouped with the DCEU. Creatively speaking, the DCEU and the DCU are two different takes and should be separated. Furthermore, it is easier to organize the articles by having them split instead of one large convoluted article detailing different timelines and stuff. Samhiuy (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft: it is not clear if it is an hard reboot or just a rebranding of the old DCEU. I think that we should wait. --Redjedi23 (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:: Regardless if this the successor to the DCEU or a continuation of the DCEU, this seems like a natural break in the article and thus a good place to split the topic.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even if the DCU is not a hard reboot, the old article is already too large and convoluted even without these new projects. This is as obvious a divider we're going to get for a much-needed article split.

But beyond all that, I think some people are falling for clever PR wording regarding the yet-to-be-released projects from the old regime. They can't disown those projects publicly (yet) because WB already heavily invested in them and need them to return as much money as possible. Telling everyone those projects and characters won't have a future will cause a decent chunk of people to lose interest in seeing them. Prefall 12:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please don’t delete it because this is different from the old universe and it will be more confusing if kept the new movies and the old movies under the same page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovie11 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Having two seperate articles helps keep things seperate. The DCEU article was becoming too unwiedly to begin with. As per James Gunn, Superman: Legacy is the "true start" of the DCU. -FilmVoyage (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously Gunn would never be allowed to go and say "hey these four movies coming up we spent millions of dollars on will not go any further and are just remnants of a previous direction", he kept it vague on purpose but anyone can pick up on the hints that this is a reboot, be it a soft or hard one, so it makes sense to keep the two pages separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.217.179.6 (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge: I know it's basically a reboot of the Snyder era, but I think there can be a way to merge this into the DCEU page. conman33 (. . .talk) 15:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just like we have a separate article for each phase of the MCU. Whether it's a hard reboot or soft reboot doesn't really matter. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it's still not entirely clear whether this is a hard reboot and whether the new films will share continuity with the older ones, but from a real-world perspective this is clearly a brand new thing. We should not be trying to stuff in all the new info to DC Extended Universe, which is already quite lengthy. There was also consensus at Talk:DC Extended Universe#Requested move 31 January 2023 for this draft to be moved to the mainspace. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Film has been notified of this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough information at the moment to justify the split, per the discussions held before the new article was made. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the past discussions and those above me. This is a natural content break for the material on an article (DCEU) that was already having WP:SIZE issues. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MCU has separate pages for each phase. Keeping the DCEU and DCU separate is akin to MCU having separate articles on different phases too. - 42.61.129.69 (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This article as-is needs to be deleted. As of today, James Gunn has confirmed that they are not rebooting the DCEU. While The Flash resets aspects of the franchise, it won't change everything. That can be read here. If the article should be repurposed into a "Chapter" article similar to MCU's phase articles, I would support keeping it. As-is however it is a premature article that was created with over-excitement from us as editors.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a strong reason to delete the article and re-merge it with the DCEU article. If the one in charge of these films says it's not a reboot, then we should go by his word. I guess we could say he's partially rebooting the DCEU, but that was also going to be done under Walter Hamada. So I don't think there's any reason to have a separate DCU article. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. If the co-CEO/co-Chairman James Gunn states that it's not a reboot, who are we to say that it is? We can reference that it "restarts" aspects of the franchise through paragraphs/pros in the article. I've made this comparison before, but there are various examples of a film in an established continuity changing the franchise. Some examples would be X-Men: Days of Future Past in the 20th Century Fox X-Men films, each of the respective Terminator movies, J.J. Abram's Star Trek movie, Back to the Future: Part II...Each of these examples are equally comparable as they change the timeline/continuity through the use of time-travel (something that The Flash is also doing). DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attention all, particularly to users (who have commented): RebelYasha, Samhiuy, TriiipleThreat, Roman Reigns Fanboy, Spiderone, RedJedi23, Prefall, Ovie11, FilmVoyage, 46.217.179.6, Conman33, JDDJS, InfiniteNexus, Adamstom97 -- and all other contributors. With Gunn's new comments, its clear this is not a hard/complete reboot as some may have initially believed. Though the DCEU article is currently long as-is, it seems the discussion should be/needs to be how to condense its contents and/or an article renaming. Furthermore, this current article could be kept as a more more detailed article about the "Chapter 1: Gods and Monsters" slate of projects. Thoughts?

DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By certain characters staying he is most definitely referring to his TSS/Peacemaker characters and the Waller series already is evidence of this. Everything else is getting recasted pretty much. Cavill and Batfleck are gone, Gal is up in the air but it seems that the Amazon series will end with a Wonder Woman (which by then someone new will likely have been cast) and Ezra is pretty much out after The Flash, the latter pretty obviously not being stated right now since that’d kill interest in the movie. So I still strongly oppose merging/deleting this into the DCEU as that will just convolut things even worse. There’s a reason why we don’t include the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy as part of the official film structure of the MCU at Marvel despite being linked via the multiverse in No Way Home and releasing before that franchise started in 2008. This logic should apply to the DCEU/DCU dilemma as well since it’s almost the same thing. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 07:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You’re (DisneyMetalhead) focusing too much on in-universe perspective. In the MOS:REALWORLD, the DCEU is a thing and so is the DCU. They can have story elements or characters that carry over from one to another but that doesn’t change the fact that they are being treated as separate entities by reliable sources. And as I said previously, this is still a natural break in the article and a good place to split, regardless of perspective. —TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to exclusively focus on continuity. I'm referring to the fact that it is one continued franchise. Gunn's clarification shows us that it is a continuation of the DCEU. The discussion should be to merge the pages/information into one article. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Chapter 1: Gods and Monsters per DisneyMetalhead. The change in name to DC Universe does not reflect change in continuity. The current shared universe was renamed the DC Universe in October 2022 (https://comicbook.com/dc/news/warner-bros-official-name-dc-movies-films-universe-dceu-dcu-explained/, https://www.slashfilm.com/1072135/the-dc-extended-universe-is-no-more-long-live-the-dc-universe/). DCU is in effect now. Swordofneutrality (talk) 07:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the DC Universe name should stick for this particular article because it's an all-encompassing one much like the one for the Marvel Cinematic Universe and talks about everything. Since "Chapters" are clearly Gunn's approach to "Phases" in the MCU there should be seperate articles for each Chapter like how there are individual articles for the MCU's Phases that cover each part of the franchise by itself. This is for everything RebelYasha (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that @Swordofneutrality:'s implication was that it should be renamed to reflect something similar to the MCU's phase articles. The DCU is a continuation of the DCEU. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right; my suggestion is to rename the DCEU article to DC Universe (media franchise) or similar and also have separate articles about the DCU chapters. Swordofneutrality (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note My opinion of keeping the article has not changed at all based on the latest news. Whether this is the best name for the article is a different discussion; however, regardless of how much of an in universe reboot happens, there is an extremely significant change in the real world people behind the films. The DCEU article is already very long. This is a perfect natural content splitting point. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the discussion at this point then be to rename the DCEU article (if anything), and then use additional articles to separate the "chapters" aka phases? The argument that the article is long is valid, but there really isn't two separate franchises here. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into the DC Extended Universe for now, while it is possible (and maybe likely) an article should be made for this separate incarnation/revision of DC's cinematic universe films as of now no actual films or TV series have been produced or even started production. Its TOOSOON.★Trekker (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Six exists despite the fact that not only has nothing in it started development, but nothing from Phase 5 has even been released. I fail to see how this is different. In fact, there are far more reasons that this should be a standalone article. There's completely new leadership running the company. Characters are being recast. It's a completely new period for the company. It's not like either article is short. DCEU was already ready for a content split. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic we should also delete the Marvel Cinematic Universe articles for stuff like Phases Five and Six since there are a massive chunk of projects in that franchise that are still in varying stages of pre-production. This warrants a standalone article because regardless of if the DCEU is being "rebranded", the content itself speaks to the fact Gunn is clearly breaking continuity with the established canon going forward and this article's content would not fit with the DCEU article we have because the projects involved are completely dissociated. It would be incredibly unwieldy to merge this especially given the DCEU does not follow the structure in regards to chronology Gunn's slate already does from the on-set, and it's also highly likely that anything that survives the transition between continuities isn't going to acknowledge the previous canon going forward, essentially also constituting a reboot like with Waller only making reference to events from Peacemaker and TSS, but nothing else. RebelYasha (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't relevant. And I would have no problem merging Phase Five and Six into the main MCU article honestly.★Trekker (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first film of Phase Five in the MCU releases in 2 weeks so that point is already lost. Most projects of Phase Five have already filmed or are about to begin filming so that point is also lost. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Six exists though, so what you just said is irrelevant. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion I held at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Six#Mainspace, that might be of some relevance. -- Alex_21_TALK 12:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.★Trekker (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this analysis. We shouldn't have articles for projects exclusively for titles that aren't even a reality yet. They are all in early-development if anything (MCU Phases 6 and 7) and DCEU: Chapter 1 - Gods and Monsters. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'd also like to make mention of the fact that The Flash's main story inspiration being Flashpoint means that whether or not certain characters are retained from the DCEU does not disregard the fact this is essentially a reboot by all accounts. Flashpoint's story also ends with specific characters from the previous New Earth DC Universe surviving and even remembering events from the previous pre-Flashpoint timeline, which is also likely what the movie will derive from to explain the change in continuity still allowing characters like the Suicide Squad members and A.R.G.U.S. to cross over. New 52 was still treated as a reboot/relaunch of the DC Universe in the comics that was completely dissociated from the years of comics pre-dating Flashpoint and did not require that material for the reader to understand the new canon, in the same way that's completely what they're going for with using The Flash movie to act as a transition point into the James Gunn canon. Some characters will move into the new timeline but most of them will be treated as if its their first or earliest appearance. Doesn't make it any less of a reboot because the DCEU will not be required to understand the context for the characters anymore. Superman: Legacy isn't related to Man of Steel, in the same way The Batman isn't related to BvS. It's a reboot in everything but explicit naming. RebelYasha (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The difference here however is we have the man partially rebooting the DCEU saying that the DCEU films are a part of DCU. Nobody ever called Killing Joke a New 52 story, even though elements of it made it into the New 52. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That quote about the four projects this year being connected to the DCU still doesn't mean they're set in the DCU. Shazam and Aquaman are DCEU sequels, and Blue Beetle has been in production for far longer than the current leadership has been around so Gunn and Safran can't really step in and alter its canon to make it a part of their universe as its being made. Him saying Aquaman leads into Superman is still true by technicality because he's talking about their film releases, and Superman is still their next movie after Aquaman since Commandos and Waller are TV series.

He also explicitly makes mention of his DCU being seperate multiple times in the interview he did with DC following his announcement:

“But the one thing that we can promise is that everything from our first project forward (Creature Commandos) will be canon and will be connected. We’re using some actors from the past, we’re not using other actors from the past, but everything from that moment forward will be connected and consistent.”

"But I know a lot of other times these characters cross around. In Creature Commandos, one of the main characters shows up in Waller."

"We had input on [The Flash's ending] for sure, but there’s nothing we had to do in order to set up our universe."

To further add credence, DC literally calls this article on their website, "James Gunn and Peter Safran on Building a New DC Universe"

https://www.dc.com/blog/2023/01/31/james-gunn-and-peter-safran-on-building-a-new-dc-universe

Again, the wording on his quote about the four projects this year may be shaky, but I seriously think you and some other people here looking way too deeply into what it means. These films aren't going to matter to this new slate of films. Gunn and Safran are just wording things as diplomatically as possible because if either of them flat out admitted they weren't important to his new slate, it would immediately come off as a bad PR move for selling those upcoming films to audiences because then they'd have no reason to watch them, which is also why they're playing it extremely coy in regards to Jason Momoa potentially switching to Lobo, or whether Paradise Lost is related to the current Wonder Woman or a new version of the character. All of these movies were in development long before Gunn and Safran assumed their positions so it's very likely absolutely nothing has been changed regarding them and their status as DCEU movies with the exception of Flash, because that's really the only movie that would require alterations due to the nature of its story to segue more directly into the new films. They're able to openly say that Superman and Batman are reboots because those actors' exits from their roles were made very public in an official capacity, whereas they won't address anyone who is still technically receiving projects until after said projects come out. Everything else is still pointing towards this being a clean slate restart that doesn't warrant a merge with the DCEU content. It'd be way too confusing and would clutter that article signficantly. RebelYasha (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a dispute that this universe is different from the previous one, after all it's a timeline reset. However at least some DCEU films are also a part of DCU. Gunn has explicitly called them so as I've shown. If you won't agree to merging it back, then I suggest at least mentioning that films from Shazam: Gods and Monsters onwards are part of DCU or might be. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. Other issues also come up with the fact that all of the "Gods and Monsters" slate are in early development. The only one that they stated was in production is Creature Commandos. It's interesting to point out that there aren't individual articles for the Tim Burton Batman films vs the Christopher Nolan Batman movies. Those are separate continuity, and separate from a real world perspective. The "DCEU" movies into the 'DCU' slate share continuity, something that Gunn and Safran have pointed out... so why would there be 2 articles? DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument, there should be a different article for the DC Universe (general term) each time they do a new reboot/reality/Elseworlds etc. The discussion here is intended to point out that there is only one DC cinematic franchise at this point. Gunn isn't rebooting the franchise. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I want to point out that whether or not the universe is rebooted in anyway doesn't really matter. There is completely new leadership in charge now. Several significant characters are going to be recast. Regardless of how hard or softly the universe is rebooting, out of universe, this is an extremely major change of direction for the franchise. The DCEU page is due for a content split. This gives a perfectly natural point to do it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly what JDDJS said. This is entirely new leadership. An entire new studio was formed. DC Films to DC Studios. The remaining 2023 projects are just leftovers awaiting release that the new leadership inherited and are throwing out and getting them released ASAP. When Scooby-Doo gets a new show, we make a new article, even though most of the voice cast is kept. FilmVoyage (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really see why it maters if the franchise now has new leadership, point still stands that none of these projects have begun production - let alone pre-production - they could all be cancelled tomorrow for all we know and this new leadership fired and their ideas and changes for the franchise scrapped. Merge it to the main franchise article until we have proof that at least one of the projects is being filmed. "Don't move content out of the draft space until filming has started" is an almost universally agreed upon standard for film and TV, I don't see why the same wouldn't apply to film series/franchises.★Trekker (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's already been pointed out that that's not the case though, otherwise we wouldn't have a phase 6 article for the MCU. Yes, I know other stuff exists, but you're pointing to a precedent that simply doesn't exist. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Phase Six shouldn't exist as an article either, and it is a standard, a standard people sadly have begun to ignore recently because cinematic fandom has gotten way too much space on Wikipedia.★Trekker (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Both this and Phase Six satisfy WP:FILMSERIES, as well as WP:GNG, and does not violate any aspect of WP:CRYSTAL. These are fine to exist currently, because even if none of the projects get made or release (we do know one is already in production, Creature Commandos), having an article discussing such ventures would still be necessary, given the size issues already at the DCEU article. This is a natural topic/point which the material can be split. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        It does violate CRYSTAL as far as I see it. It probably should have an article eventually, but I will never agree that it should have one now.★Trekker (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @StarTrekker Exactly what part of CRYSTAL does the article violate? -- Alex_21_TALK 23:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - @★Trekker You can't just say something is a standard when you have no policy or precedent to back that statement up. The relevant policy (WP:FILMSERIES) says nothing like that. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        My 'precedent' is the experience I've had with hundreds of drafts on films. I'm not going to change my mind about what my memories tell me has been discussed over and over. You're free to ignore my take if you want to but those are my experiences. And considering how the AFD is leaning towards keep regardless you really don't need to convince me anyway.★Trekker (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Phase 6 article shouldn't exist. At all. It could/should be referred to in pros, but the projects aren't in production yet. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  point still stands that none of these projects have begun production This is actually incorrect; Creature Commandos is currently in production. -- Alex_21_TALK 03:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Additionally so, why would there be a separate article based off of the fact that actors are being recast and/or the studio's leadership has changed. That's arguably something for the studio article. It has no real applicability to an article that details a film franchise. None of the "Gods and Monsters" projects are finished, and the only one in production to some degree is Creature Commandos. As I had tried to point out earlier, the move to a DC Universe (franchise) article was premature in various aspects. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By this argument, why wasn't there new articles made for the X-Men when they "rebooted" with X-Men: First Class? DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Completely different scenario. First Class was initially only meant to be a prequel to the 2000's X-Men trilogy a la Origins Wolverine and it was really Days of Future Past that set into motion the idea that it would dissociate the two timelines. On top of that, there are films like Deadpool and TV series like Legion that distinctly complicate and break timeline acknowledgement multiple times to the point where it would be way too cumbersome to tie all those films together seperately.

With the DCU we know what we're getting. Waller is basically the only thing that's acknowledging anything from the DCEU and per Gunn's words it's only taking into account events from Peacemaker and TSS in a very loose fashion that doesn't even have to acknowledge the wider DCEU timeline, likely due to the fact the show was in development already as a DCEU show before Gunn and Safran took over and started developing their slate. Everything else regarding the Justice League characters is being rebooted from scratch with NO TIES to the old cast and characters like what was meant to be the case with the X-Men films since they still carried over more than just a few loose acknowledgements of continuity. Superman in the DCU is not related to Cavill. It's confirmed now that Batman will not be either Pattinson or Affleck and is essentially another reboot. The Lanterns show is replacing both the previously planned GLC movie and the HBO Max show Berlanti was developing, and Paradise Lost isn't even being acknowledged as connected to DCEU Wonder Woman specifically, just that it takes place before Diana's birth so it is an easy out in the event they likely recast her as well, especially coming off of the reports that cameos related to DCEU characters were removed from the Flash's latest cut. RebelYasha (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if they change it, its still should have its own article.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 16:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The announcement and info on this is enough to warrant a full separate article from the previously established DC Extended Universe. Voicebox64 (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Agree that this is not only a new franchise but also could not fit well onto the DCEU page anyways. Yeoutie (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per InfiniteNexus. starship .paint (exalt) 07:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per InfiniteNexus, FilmVoyage, and JDDJS.--WuTang94 (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per InfiniteNexus, FilmVoyage, and JDDJS.--GhaziTwaissi (talk) 7:14, 5 Febraury 2023 (UTC)
Kepp meowmeow \S-) (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support/Merge I totally agree with DisneyMetalhead. DCU is a continuation of the DCEU. This article should be treated as a chapter of the whole (fractured) franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henjin Dono (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support/Merge per Aadarshashutosh and DisneyMetalhead Mitchy Power (talk) 10:10, 7 February 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.