Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 16	February 18 >

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Mills (American actor)[edit]

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

He had a long and prolific career, but his work is nearly all uncredited. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The best source is at AllMovie[1], but this is just a perfunctory one-paragraph biography with no analysis. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. BruceThomson (talk) 01:59, 23 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!} 04:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Turkey, Helsinki[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All the article does is say the embassy exists with a primary source. LibStar (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Finland, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete nothing to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added some information to improve the article. Sincerely,--იაკობ მახარაძე (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also has relevance related to Turkish opposition to Finland joining NATO. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Turkish opposition to Finland joining NATO" is already covered in Finland–Turkey_relations#Finnish_NATO_bid. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't addressed how this fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - this very barely meets notability as having two good sources, but merging this into the other article on bilateral relations might be a better outcome. Bearian (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a fairly detailed chapter, and in passim, in:
- Koskela, Mikko; Lahe, Jukka; Ridanpää, Janne (2016). Maailmanympärimatka Helsingissä: Suurlähetystöt ja niiden historia. Helsinki: Otava. ISBN 978-952-5805-86-4.

This book is specificially about embassies and not relations in general. Even from that single source the article could be expanded many-fold, so I oppose Bearian's idea of merging. Coverage is also more than likely in the many books that cover Helsinki block by block and building by building, which Maailmanympärimatka cites often. The 2008 incident also means that this embassy is covered whenever diplomatic immunity is discussed in the Finnish context. The ambassador's residence also houses some functions of the embassy and is located in a building built in 1930 that was formerly the residence of president Juho Kusti Paasikivi so there is likely coverage on that one as well. One cannot make a proper WP:BEFORE search for this without consulting Finnish-language books and newspapers. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I would agree that this meets WP:HEY, if you could find and add such sources. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added some from said book. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get a little more consensus, as recommendations varied pretty widely. Also, would like to see if any opinions have changed after Finnusertop applied some WP:HEY. Joyous! | Talk 22:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 22:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After additions by Finnusertop (WP:HEY). /Julle (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Finnusertop and after their addition of more sourced content. Highway 89 (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Finnusertop. Charsaddian (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved since nomination to illustrate historical significance and it is clear the building has also been a site of more recent events (eg. 2008 protests and subsequent politically motivated attacks that were covered in the media) to satisfy WP:NBUILDING criteria sufficiently. Given there are no delete votes, it should now qualify for speedy keep WP:SK upon the LibStar nominator's withdrawal. Please consider withdrawing unless you still have serious reservations about the article that you believe must be addressed before this AfD is closed. Thanks so much. Ppt91 (talk) 23:14, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melaghar Class XII School[edit]

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

Not seeing enough to pass WP:NORG. I found mentions in East Mojo and Careers 360 but no WP:SIRS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Tripura. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not nobtale enough. Charsaddian (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Schools are not inherently notable. This is unreferenced and nothing demonstrates notability 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a one line unreferenced article fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 24 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 18:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chitra Tripathi[edit]

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

Khorang 20:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and News media. Khorang 20:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Khorang, are you going to discuss any reason for your nomination? Joyous! | Talk 21:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't qualify using multiple reliable, secondary and independent sources. Most of the sentences of this article is directly plagiarized from this source. The tone of the article is promotional (peacock) and not written in a neutral point of view. It is clearly understood that this article was written from a fan point of view where sentences like "She has worked with a number of news channels....", "To her viewers surprise not even completing her innings....." exists. Khorang 16:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Absence of delete rationale WP:CSK CT55555(talk) 05:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.I can find significant coverage from SheThePeople and The Begusarai. She is also recipient of Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 06:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LordVoldemort728 passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:25, 21 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 18:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ljubo Andrijašević[edit]

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

Semi-pro footballer with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I did find ICO, a hyper-local source - a radio station serving a town of about 8000 people - which mentions him a few times. It's not enough for SPORTBASIC/GNG on its own and both guidelines require multiple WP:RS showing significant coverage in any case. Nothing found in Serbian Cyrillic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:05, 23 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. Procedural close. The previous AfD was closed a day ago, opening a new discussion this early is disruptive. If you don't agree with the previous close, take it to WP:DRV. Randykitty (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Geeta Dutt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:V, WP:NLIST, WP:SIGCOV and WP:DEL14. The last Afd didnt address policy regarding the actual list. Consensus based on dozens of other articles is for delete. It is not referenced, it doesn't follow the WP:MOS and is not even filtered in any way to determine what is notable. It is not even verifiable. scope_creep^Talk 18:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:V is a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia. There is no WP:V here. Lack of verifiability is an automatic disqualifier for an article here. I also support the valid points made by the nom. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close The last AFD closed on 22:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC) and less than one day later this one is started. Dream Focus 11:40, 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. Star Mississippi 18:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Battawi[edit]

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

Only Arabic sources I can find are ones like FilGoal and Time Kora, which clearly don't establish notability. Badly sourced BLP with no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In different circumstances, I would have proposed to turn the page into a draft, but in this case, there seems to be so little information available about the player that we should just delete the article. Oltrepier (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:02, 23 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 18:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Bessa[edit]

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

Unable to find multiple instances of significant coverage, no evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. He is mentioned twice in Digital de Vizela and once in a squad list in Mais Futebol. No evidence of notability. I note the existence of this Blogspot interview but this is clearly unreliable and not independent. It seems to be a blog for a club that he used to play for. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 17 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)} 18:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not pass WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:10, 23 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 and merge The Glory Dome. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dunamis International Gospel Centre[edit]

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

Massive CITEKILL to mask the lack of org level depth of these sources, many of which are primary, reprints and otherwise not independent of the church. I'm also nominating the primary church building for the same reason. Star Mississippi 17:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Nigeria. Star Mississippi 17:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Looks like a typical local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A 100,000 seat church is not your typical local church Atlantic306 (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge The Glory Dome into this article. A super-church of this size is something we should be covering just on architectural grounds. There is reliable sources coverage in the articles such as The Nation and The Vanguard which like most Nigerian outlets is unfortunately quite promotional but we can't just ignore all Nigerian topics in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and merge per Atlantic306. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as article is notable --- Tbf69 P • T 12:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306 and merge The Glory Dome into this article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:31, 21 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!} 17:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Wilson Aleng[edit]

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

No evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. An Indonesian source search has been done under the Aleng spelling and Along spelling, both of which only yielded database coverage and Wikipedia mirrors. I found a Republika mention but it's literally just that - a passing mention. Also found a Wordpress blog but this is not WP:RS so counts for nothing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:37, 21 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 Salt. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Enenche[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a G4, but still no indication he meets N:MUSIC or any other element of BIO. Suggest SALTing if this closes as delete as this is not the first AfD Star Mississippi 17:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Nigeria. Star Mississippi 17:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom. No claim to notability, and no reliable independent sources. --bonadea contributions talk 17:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete puff coverage, there is quite a bit about his daughter getting married, but we aren't a celebrity magazine. Salt as well. Oaktree b (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No signs of notability at all UtherSRG (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The circumstances leading to the article's previous deletions (i.e. lack of reliable sources) have not changed since then. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Still no credible indications why this BLP subject is notable. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment closer, please see Talk:Paul Enenche, which can be taken as a Keep !vote from the creator who may not understand the processes and where to comment. Star Mississippi 13:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable subject. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:38, 21 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. Star Mississippi 00:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snowboard Academy[edit]

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

Article about a direct-to-video film, not properly sourced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not all automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show markers of significance such as notable film awards or the reception of significant coverage and analysis in media -- but this isn't showing anything of the sort, and its only references are a tangential quote about the difficulty of securing screenplay development deals in a magazine article that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this film, and a brief glancing namecheck of this film's existence in a short blurb about its producer later securing funding for an unrelated television film. And even on a search for other sources, I just can't find anything else WP:GNG-worthy -- all I'm getting is directories, VOD streamers and blogs, not real coverage about it in reliable or notability-building media outlets.
There's also a bit (okay, a lot) of an advertorialized lean here, and a probable conflict of interest as it was created by the same WP:SPA who created the BLP of its producer that's also been listed for AFD below.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to have more real coverage about it in real media than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: New sources have been added, but not good, reliable or notability-building ones. What's been added mainly comprises a glancing namecheck of the film's existence in an obituary of one of its cast members (thus not about the film) and reviews on unreliable and non-notable film blogs like "Mutant Reviewers" and "On Snow" — but the "has been reviewed" criterion in WP:NFILM requires still requires the reviews to come from reliable sources, meaning things like Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, The New York Times or RogerEbert.com, and cannot be fulfilled by just any random film blog you can find. The only new citation that's been added that's starting to get anywhere at all is a review from TV Guide, which isn't enough all by itself if the other reviewers are all non-notable bloggers. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Canada, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearcat - this page was created in 2005 by User:Cvene64 - who with >400 pages created is likely not an SPA. ResonantDis_tortion 16:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — seems reasonably notable as one of the first feature films on snowboarding. MY OH MY 19:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the first feature films on [insert subject here]" is not a notability criterion that exempts a film from having to be the subject of reliable source coverage and analysis. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A kind of snowboard cult-classic, but the only possibly reliable review I found (in a book called "Ski Films, a Comprehensive Guide) utterly pans it. One more in-depth review and it might be a keeper, but it was a straight-to-video so would not get noticed by most movie reviewers. (It gets 28% at Rotten Tomatoes, which is incredibly low for that site.) Again, snowboard folks might go for this, but in the annals of film it doesn't register. The section on Rudy Rupak here is totally unwarranted and un-referenced, so I'm removing that. Lamona (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all of the un-referenced cruft, mostly about Rudy Rupak, and added that one possibly reliable but negative review. I think it's now easier to get an idea about notability. Lamona (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edging towards Keep on this one, and good cleanup from Lamona. We have several criteria in WP:NFILM; while I concur this film does not have clear evidence that it strongly meets any one of them, there is evidence that several of the criteria are nearly or adequately fulfilled. Including:

The lead cast comprises several notable actors per WP:NFO. Corey Haim did claim it as one of his hardest parts.
~~At least 3 non-blog independent reviews exist with sigcov - one is mainstream reputable, the remaining 2 are specialist publications.~~
At least 4 non-blog independent reviews exist with sigcov - two are mainstream reputable, the remaining 2 are specialist publications.
Criteria WP:NFO: The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema - this is one of the first movies to feature the, at the time, new craze of snowboarding.

Given this is film is over 25 years old and we may be unable to find print-only publications, together these should be sufficient to presume notability. Also note - the nom claims a WP:COI due to the article being created by an SPA, but this is very much not true, creator has over 14000 edits: [2] ResonantDis_tortion 20:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Added a second review by Scott Weinberg, though it is a capsule review he is an established film critic with professional bylines, not a "non-notable blogger." There is most likely print coverage -- while this is not sigcov and I am not claiming it is, Variety did call the film infamously bad which alludes to something, somewhere. The bulk of the promotional stuff appears to come from User:Professoranthem, not the article creator, and this should really be corrected in the initial nom. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:06, 17 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. If an established user thinks it worth bringing back to AfD, the usual waiting period need not apply, but with split consensus I don't see a relist helping at this time. Star Mississippi 18:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Rabbi[edit]

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

~~Non-notable Entrepreneur. Tone is very advertising. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)~~ - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Israel. Misterrrrr (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has written an article about himself in Forbes, that's about the best sourcing I find. Non-RS as it's primary. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep good Hebrew sourcing in my POV, and kind of notable Israel-based person, however Forbes council blog should be deleted. Mozzcircuit (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per much better sourcing at Hewiki and WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've just removed Forbes blog - it was really not reliable source (100%). I think, the general notability of the person is established through the development of Israel hi-tech industry. I chose to translate the page as it is quite old and well sourced in a sophisticated Hebrew Wikipedia. BTW, I didn't include awards like top 100 Entrepreneurs of Israel.. and so on. NiLok223 (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage does not seem in depth. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak draftify because the article has potential even if it is not suitable for mainspace right now. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because the keep votes focused on Hebrew sources, I only checked those. They are mostly brief mentions of him in the context of his business dealings, none of it is significant. There was also one interview (not independent). His company might be notable, but he is not. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, weak keep. The page was nominated by a sock. Not a good sign for the discussion. The person's notablity is on the edge, but counting the sock's nomination—Weak Keep 77.137.71.121 (talk) 11:55, 21 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 18:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Janaa padaalu[edit]

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

Article about a poetry book, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for books. As always, books get their own Wikipedia articles only if they have some claim to significance, such as noteworthy literary awards and/or the reception of coverage about the book (e.g. several reviews by professional literary critics in real media). But the only notability claim being made here is that the book exists, and the referencing isn't cutting it at all: three of the four footnotes are mere directory entries on online bookstores, and the other one didn't actually lead to a piece of media coverage about the book, but instead redirected me to an online roulette site. And even if that last one was actually a real WP:GNG-worthy reliable source that's just been temporarily hijacked by an advertiser, it still takes more than just one acceptable source to establish a book's notability anyway.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this book from having to pass GNG on its sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and India. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 17 February 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}}.

The article is now sourced correctly and the previous link is now corrected. I've also added additional references. Please keep the article. TejaTanikella (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per as nom. I am unable to find review in a google search. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 03:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The references of the above book are already added to this. Keep the article. MrTeja (talk • contribs)
Keep: I have checked the links provided, and they are also in the regional language telugu. They are valid according to me.This article must be kept on wikipedia.Tanikellad 07:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC) (Double vote by sock. MarioGom (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per nom. MarioGom (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: @User:Bearcat and @User:MarioGom Why not we speedy delete this article as the creator is sockpuppeteer and 3 out of 9 edits has made by other users? 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:45, 23 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 might I suggest that the intereditor issues that are across several AfDs find a new forum since they seem to be more meta than topic related. Star Mississippi 00:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of short live-action films[edit]

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

At the moment, this is a random selection of the thousands upon thousands of short live-action films which already have an article (e.g. Category:American silent short films has more than 2,800 entries, most of them live-action). But even with this endless supply of entries, this list still contains many redlinks anyway. Seems like an overly broad topic for a list, either needs splitting in many sublists or deletion as unworkable. Fram (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Fram (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Short films shows short films are divided by year, nation, and other categories. You can't delete an article because you think it might be too long. Category:Lists of short films shows some valid list articles for short films. If any red links, that is non-notable entries, are on a list article, then you simply remove them, you don't delete the entire list. If a list is incomplete, that is also not a valid reason to delete it. If this list gets too long, it can be split by year like its done in Category:Short films by decade already. Dream Focus 09:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This list was created in 2005. 17 years later, it still is a useless, random selection. If an article isn't helpful, objective, useful, ... for 17 years, and making it compliant would mean splitting it in other articles and renaming it to "lists of ..." anyway, then what purpose does it serve to keep it around anyway. Having this article doesn't make enwiki any better. Fram (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Does deleting it somehow make enwiki any better? It has 43,107 page views [3] over its life, so some have found it useful, even if its not complete. Dream Focus 09:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, not having this page would make enwiki better. Readers of an encyclopedia shouldn't be confronted with an utterly, completely random selection of some examples of a topic when they search for a list like this. If I go to a library and ask for a book on a topic, I'ld rather have them tell me "we don't have any" than knowingly being presented with a very bad one. Note that List of short films redirects here, so many of the people who end up here may be even less satisfied that they don't get e.g. any animated movies. Fram (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    
    simply viewing an article does not alone make it useful LegalSmeagolian (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ~~Don’t bother arguing with DF, they vote “keep” on almost every deletion discussion they participate in, especially useless lists.~~ Dronebogus (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What a crock, Dronebogus, and how uncivil. Your participation here is rude and irrational too. Dronebogus votes almost entirely against Keeping, Dream Focus has voted mostly for Keeping but not as overwhelmingly as Dronebogus has voted against. So does that mean Dronebogus shoudl be ignored completely? I don't want to be unduly incivil myself, but with their incivility, their calling for complete cancellation of another editor, perhaps that would be best?

When I participate at AFD, I choose to enter in on situations where sensible-seeming topics are up, and where some effort towards saving the articles seems productive. Dream Focus has their reasons to choose where they enter in or do not, likely choosing to be selective as a matter of sensible time management. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 17:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And may I point out that you are clearly WP:BLUDGEONING this AfD with useless commentary like “rubbish”? Dronebogus (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not think the distinction by genre really adds anything in this case, plus this list contains some feature length films, some films that really are more "ads" or "PSAs" then actual films, and a bunch of redirects to pages that share the same name as the film (see "Silver Surfer (1994)"). Maybe if the list was "notable live-action" short films it would be more manageable. --LegalSmeagolian (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LegalSmeagolian for your comment. Indeed it is or should be about "notable" ones. There is a common misunderstanding, i would call it, that the term "notable" needs to be stated explicitly in titles of list-articles and/or that the introductions to list-articles must go on about "only notable examples wanted". Being heavy-handed in titling and in introduction is one way to go, and in some cases seems helpful for dealing with too many incoming new edits. But it is more ideal to just convey by quality of writing that this is indeed a list of notable ones only. For example in a section on short live-action American films of the 1970s, it would be more ideal to start with citing some reliable high-quality sources on the most important short live-action American films of the 1970s. And to have every entry's importance supported by text (perhaps in a column in a table of the items) and inline citations. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete impossibly broad list. Dronebogus (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 17:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:American comedy short films alone has over 1,400 pages. Even if many of those are animated, there are far too many items in this topic for there to be a page that is not indiscriminate or wildly incomplete. Perhaps this should just replaced with a Lists of short films or otherwise redirected to Lists_of_films#Short (I've repointed List of short films there), but a list being too long is in fact a reason to delete because a huge swath of links becomes diffult to maintain and navigate. WP:SALAT says "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value", and one that would have several thousand items and cannot be maintained does not have value, even if divided by decade. Merely duplicating Category:Short films by decade is a pointless exercise - are you going to do that? Reywas92^Talk 15:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merely duplicating categories would not be helpful, I agree. Providing intelligent introduction to the topics of American short comedy films, in each decade, would be great. There must be sources towards doing this, wouldn't you think? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 17:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and I want to say, obviously. Short film is a valid article and it is okay for it to have an included list OR to split that out separately. About "live action" or not, I am fine with editors merging or splitting by types of these films, based on discussion at Talk pages; this is not something for AFD, and past versions of lists changed for editorial reasons should be kept rather than deleted in part so that editors can change their minds and rework material. Wikipedia obviously handles very large lists. This is not an "utterly, complete random selection", it is divided by decades for example. I personally like seeing the historic sweep, from a film of carriages etc going by Hyde Park Corner in 1889 to the proliferation of films nowadays. With the proliferation of short films, of course, it has certainly become unreasonable to plan to list ALL such films. And nobody wants that. There are reasonable rules to keep it manageable that can be discussed, or are being discussed, among editors at the Talk pages. Also wp:CLNT, which some !voters seem unaware of perhaps, explains how categories, lists, navigation templates are COMPLEMENTARY. A list allows for introduction, explanation, use of inline citations and other sourcing, redlinks identifying where articles are needed, and more. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 17:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So Draftify the page if there can be further discussion of short films by decade or whatever. A list can be appropriate to complement a category when entries actually are annotated with discussion of each one, but with such an enormous hierarchy of categories there's no inherent reason that any arbitrary topic that is categorized ought to have a corresponding list. When a list has several thousand items, it becomes unwieldy and of little use. Reywas92^Talk 21:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AFD is another where I think a speedy keep as an administrative matter would have made sense. The deletion nomination does not provide any reason for deletion. It comments about the "at the moment" state of the list-article, notes that categories exist, notes that there are redlinks. It boils down to "seems like an overly broad topic" to them and they note that splitting to make it more workable is an option. That should have been stated at the Talk page and not brought to AFD. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 17:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to de-legitimize a discussion not going your way is a pretty lame move. WP:TNT exists and arguably applies here. Dronebogus (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother arguing with Doncram, he has been WP:HOUNDING me, posting empty "keeps" or incorrect "speedy keeps", blindly reverting prods like here, and so on. They are not really interested in the articles or with the actual merits of the AfD, but only want to annoy me. Fram (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic of this list is so overly broad as to have little value per WP:SALAT. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons above and fails WP:SIGCOV. No effective references. scope_creep^Talk 13:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Just want to highlight bringing up SIGCOV as absurd for this topic, even if I agree it should be deleted. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to creating indices with more thoughtful organization, basically per WP:TNT, because this is far too inclusive and far too exclusive and cannot hope to become satisfactory at this title. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:32, 21 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. A merger discussion, which seems to be what this is headed toward, doesn't require continuing of this AfD. Star Mississippi 11:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jog, Karnataka[edit]

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

jog is not village this article is duplicate of Kargal , and i want to give some info regarding this why i nominated for deletion:

jog is not village and there is no such place located in karnataka state of india.

jog falls got its name from "jog kargal town" and this town have it's own wiki article with detailed info kargal you can check that. this town govenment website is www.jogkargaltown.mrc.gov.in/en/about-tp , this Official govenment Website have all detailed info you can verify it yourself.

census mentioned in jog, karnataka article also wrong and there reference doesn't have any word jog,

There is no good reason for merging of Jog, Karnataka with Kargal beacuse Kargal article is actually correct and Jog, Karnataka is vandalised over a time .

Jog Falls water falls also have it's own article. Gerusoppa village is also have its own article. Kargal Jog Kargal Town also have it's own article.

Than what is the need of this duplicate, vandalised, fake referenced article Jog, Karnataka ???? Nimmoun (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator's rationale does not make sense. The existence of Jog as a village in Karnataka is verified by the two sources already given on the page. Jog Falls is a waterfall that is in or near the village; the village and its associated waterfalls are not the same entity. The source given regarding "Jog Kargal town" cannot be reached (at least not by me) so I cannot verify the nominator's claim of any information contained there. The claim that the article has been vandalized over time is not a reason to delete the article. Nominator will have to provide better sourcing to show that Jog and Kargal are, in fact, the same town. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ www.jogkargaltown.mrc.gov.in/en/about-tp this govenment website is may be blocking traffic from non Indian users so try to use Indian VPN to access this site, if you can't than I have some other sources which Related to This Jog Kargal Town (Jog and Kargal is not different place )

1) www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/lokayukta-police-arrest-jog-kargal-town-panchayat-member/article66165562.ece
2) shimoga.nic.in/en/public-utility/town-panchayath-sagara/
3) environmentclearance.nic.in/auth/FORM_A_PDF.aspx?cat_id=IA%2FKA%2FRIV%2F62455%2F2017&pid=New
4)Kannada language source vijaykarnataka.com/news/shivamogga/solid-waste-disposal-unit-in-jog-kargal-pattana-panchayati/videoshow/86141905.cms please use translator Kannada to English for eg. Google translator, this sources mentions Jog-Kargal Town .

5) Kannada language source : www.prajavani.net/district/election-results-of-jog-kargal-pattana-panchayati-682074.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimmoun (talk • contribs)

Comment I know little of the Indian system of local government, but from what Nimmoun has provided, there is either a single place called Jog-Kargal, or two separate places (Jog and Kargal) that are governed by a single panchayat. In the former case, a merge of the two pages would be appropriate. In the latter case, both articles should be retained. In neither case should the Jog article be simply deleted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Jog, Karnataka and Kargal is not different place,it is one place it is Officially Called "Jog Kargal" , as USER suggested to Merge i support it, but merge should be blanking this page and redirect to Kargal article is enough, and there is nothing copy paste required.

Comment

Clarification for the Recent addition of Names Section in Jog, Karnataka article.
Jog, Karnataka#Names

Gerusoppa and Jog Kargal was not same both are different places. Gerusoppa is in Uttara Kannada district and Jog Kargal is in Shivamogga District.

Jog Falls was got two name from two different Villages.

Before Indipendence of India , Jog Falls was Part Of British Government Bombay Presidencys, Uttara Kannada district, So Britishers Named this place as Gerusoppa Falls beacuse Gerusoppa was Nearest village to this water falls which is under their government.
And at the same time Water falls Front View Point is part of Mysore Kingdoms Shivamogga District, So Mysore Govenment Named this view point/falls as "Jog Falls" beacuse Jog Kargal is nearest village to this Water falls which is Administrated by their govenment.
The Jog Falls was a Natural Border between the Bombay Presidency and Kingdom of Mysore,
This is how Jog Falls got two name .such as Jog Falls, Gerusoppa Falls.

Even After Indipendence, Still now : View Point and Water Falls is in two different district Uttara Kannada and Shivamogga District, the offical District adminstration Website also mentioned the same. Visit shimoga.nic.in/en/tourist-place/jogfalls/,

So summery is Gerusoppa and Jog Kargal was two different Villages nearest to Jog Falls and Jog, Karnataka#Names was mistakenly added by other editor After proposed to deletion.

I support for both deletion or Merge. But if the choice of the administrator is Merging than i request to Just blank the Jog, Karnataka and give the redirect to Kargal, please don't copy anything from Jog, Karnataka and paste it in Kargal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimmoun (talk • contribs) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nimmoun: You have made a lot of claims here about how Jog and/or Jog Falls came to be, but you have provided no sources. The sources you have provided mention an entity called the "Jog-Kargal Panchayat" as well as an entity called "Jog Falls", but you have provided no evidence that Jog, Kargal and Jog Falls are not, in fact, three separate entities. You make know this, but you cannot provide reliable sources to prove this. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: Gerusoppa was under Bombay Presidency Uttara Kannada district .bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/others/how-jog-falls-got-to-the-bottom-of-the-atlantic-ocean/articleshow/21506931.cms

Jog Kargal is official name ; environmentclearance.nic.in/auth/FORM_A_PDF.aspx?cat_id=IA%2FKA%2FRIV%2F62455%2F2017&pid=New

This is a official website of govenment of India just check the domain it is ended with .nic.in so it is reliable source. Now Visit it and see point 9 , they mentioned Jog- Kargal village, Sagar taluk, Shivamogga District
so now it is clear Jog, Karnataka and Kargal is not different but the same and it is Officially called Jog Kargal, located in Shivamogga district.

Regarding my Claim;

Jog Falls it's water falls is in Uttara Kannada district and View Point is in Shivamogga District ; Source; shimoga.nic.in/en/tourist-place/jogfalls/.

Nimmoun (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

@WikiDan61: Sir, Jog, Karnataka is also doesn't meet Wikipedia's Notability Guidlines to have its article on wiki. WP:NGEO, WP:NPLACE , Sir as your supporting to Keep I request you to please add multiple, independent reliable sources to the article. Nimmoun (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The article was originally about Jog Falls, which the 2001 census says is a Notified Area Council. Its was changed to Jog and was said to be about a village, but no sources were cited. Jog Falls isn't in the 2011 census; it was replaced by Jog Kargal, a town panchayat - I don't know if the boundaries changed or just the name. https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/others/how-jog-falls-got-to-the-bottom-of-the-atlantic-ocean/articleshow/21506931.cms mentions a village called Jog. From Google Books, there is the Karnataka State Gazetteer (1975) which mentions that "Jog is a hamlet of Kargal", and it looks like the 1991 census has Jog and Kargal as places in the town of Jog Falls. It's unclear whether it was ever officially a village; if it was confirmed then it could stay as a separate article, but most of the content there now is about Jog Falls which should be combined with Kargal (where the only source calls uses the name Jog Kargal) for a Jog Kargal article. Peter James (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator, Nimmoun, has made their point abundantly and I would recommend that they stop repeating themselves, so that this does not become a WP:BLUDGEON situation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 17 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!} 18:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Virgo[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, NACTOR is not automatically passed by every actor whose article merely lists roles that they played -- having acting roles is literally the job description, so every actor who exists at all would get an article if merely listing roles was all that was required. Rather, notability has to be demonstrated by reliable source coverage about him and his roles in media, as evidence that his performances have garnered third-party attention and analysis.
But the roles listed here are supporting and bit parts, not major starring roles, and the sourcing consists of a pair of TikTok videos, which is not support for notability at all, and a single piece of "local kid gets role" in the local media of his own hometown, which is acceptable as a start but not in and of itself enough.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one hit of human interest coverage in his own hometown local media for sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NACTOR, as he has not had starring roles in multiple notable productions, and also fails WP:GNG, as the only coverage I could find were a couple of interviews in the South Wales Argus. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:27, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akil Byron[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's structure is not the best-looking, either... It would be a shame, since he's a full international footballer, but such a skeletal page just can't be kept, even as a draft. I still hope someone can find some more sources to support it, though! Oltrepier (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:38, 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 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!} 18:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Crawford (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:38, 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 redirect to List of Western Australia first-class cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Lehmann[edit]

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

The source in the article is literally the only one I can find on him. Fails WP:GNG and, if I understand the guideline correctly, WP:NCRIC as well. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Australia. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Sammyrice: anything you might be able to dig up on this player? StickyWicket (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't find anything useful on him. Sammyrice (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can the nom confirm if they've searched out Trove themselves or not? Australians (and New Zealanders) of this era tend to throw up sources there which are often good enough to keep articles. It would help to know if it's already been searched before someone puts the work in. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing: I have not searched Trove, nor do I know what that is. If you can point me to it, I would be happy to search (assuming this is something I have access to). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: Trove is an Australian newspaper archive which is often really helpful in turning up articles about people like this. So here's a search for Lehmann cricket which throws up a lot of recent hits of course. It'll need filtering. In general using a forename is less helpful on these sorts of things - he would have been likely called by his surname or CA Lehmann in articles. There look to be some hits from the appropriate sort of time showing that he played for West Perth I think. Whether there's enough for a biography to be written I'm not sure. The New Zealand equivalent is Papers Past by the way. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. "CA Lehmann" and "C. A. Lehmann" turn up nothing valuable, just a couple of team rosters he's listed in. A lot more hits for "C. Lehmann," but it's more of the same. Just the surname turns up countless results, but the few pages I screened were either about other people or the same trivial mentions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched ("Charles Lehmann" cricket) on trove and nothing useful came up. Fails WP:NCRIC. LibStar (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Western Australia first-class cricketers, as a valid WP:ATD. Doesn't look to pass WP:GNG, unless sources can be demonstrated. If redirected, then if sources are found in future, the redirect could always be re-converted into an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with redirecting, too. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Western Australia first-class cricketers A valid WP:ATD. It seems likely that the subject doesn't pass GNG, however there is a suitable redirect here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:54, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zevon Archibald[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found no evidence of notability. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:25, 21 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!} 18:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Collins[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either Draftify or Delete. I've just noticed that fr.wiki and de.wiki have a few more details about him, and more generally, there are already a few sources that can be retrieved. I don't know if that would be enough to fulfill WP:GNG, though... Oltrepier (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:39, 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 merge to Mormon Lake. There is no consensus for for deletion before redirect, and the first !vote even goes on to say "adding any relevant sourced content" which appears to actually be a wish for a merge. Star Mississippi 11:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rockledge, Arizona[edit]

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

This was not a settlement but rather a vacation resort on Mormon Lake. Could not find any coverage beyond routine legal notices and advertisements. –dlthewave ☎ 13:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 13:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Mormon Lake, adding any relevant sourced content from here to that article. I am generally very wary of deleting geography-related articles due to the strength of the WP:GEOLAND policy and my belief in WP:GAZ, but this has no official recognition and per GEOLAND should pass WP:GNG, which it doesn't. It is telling that essentially all of the non-Wikipedia results of a Google search for Rockledge, AZ refer to a street and subdivision in Phoenix. Furthermore, there is no signage of any kind for this place from Mormon Lake Road other than the street sign for Rockledge Road, which appears to be closed in winter. Per GEOLAND, If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. Rockledge isn't near or within the bounds of any census-designated places, nor is it really significant enough to include in the Coconino County article, so given its history as a vacation resort on the lake, redirecting to the page on the lake itself seems fair. Highway 89 (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see the road closed sign on the gate. I also see regular vehicle traffic in the snow. IMO, we should not speculate that the road is closed to the residents, nor necessarily assume that the public closure is not year-round. It could plausibly be a gate set by a homeowner association to keep strangers out of the area. Again, a phone call Monday could answer that question.

Observe also the active real estate sign (with a number to call).

IveGoneAway (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well. We're both deep in OR territory here, but that's the kind of gate that's used when a road is closed as unsafe due to snow. A homeowner's association would use something else, and what is this traffic they would want to keep out? It's a dead end track off a very long mountain road. I want to say of course that road closes in the winter, it's at 7200 ft, and look at it. But ok. Where are you seeing regular traffic? Elinruby (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "regular" was clearly the wrong adjective; I probably meant "repeated", since more than one driver has entered since the last snow and more than one driver exited, probably one trip each way per driver. Best guess, in that week of December 2016, either at least one resident made daily trips to work in town (south end of the lake) or security is checking in once a day. Who knows? Somebody somewhere around there who is RS, that's who, probably.

"... what is this traffic they would want to keep out?" I am familiar with the habit of people trying to find water access around a recreational body of water. It is a road off of the main loop around a very popular lake populated by drivers looking for north-end lake access. Its name is Mormon Lake Road, after all. If you lived on that road, you would want to keep that traffic out. I have seen several rural homes around here with that sort of gate, but rural houses here have all sorts of other kinds of gates, too.

"unsafe due to snow" more like closed because the intermittent snows they normally have won't be bladed. That driveway would not be a problem for the residents with even 6". Am I wrong that most of the winter, the AZ high desert is snow free most of the time save for a few inches that don't last long, with 2ft snows every few years?

In this case, Zoning and realtors would clearly know if there is any there there. Besides, I am legitimately in the market for lakeside retirement living in AZ ...

IveGoneAway (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you mean by "high desert". Arizona does have a handful of state routes that close from Nov-Dec through April for snow ([4]). Mormon Lake is maybe slightly lower than those but it certainly wouldn't seem far fetched to have a seasonal road around there. Even Flagstaff gets 90 inches of snow a year, which is almost twice what the big "snow-prone" western cities like Denver or Salt Lake City get. Those cities are also warmer, so snow in the uplands of Arizona will probably be there a good chunk of the winter. Of course, go a little further east and it's both lower elevation and drier... Highway 89 (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that Rockledge is the only road with a gate on that side of the lake. The realtor was not aware of the paved road closing in winter. That paved road has signs stating the rules for snow clearing conditions.

My call, that gate is "closed" all year round.

High Desert == Colorado Plateau. In 1959-60, there was only one heavy snow at west Kaibab.

IveGoneAway (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per Highway 89. I agree, that road is closed in winter - this is also very plausible given the location - and if it's inaccessible in winter, it's not a settlement. Elinruby (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mormon Lake with redirect.

"not a settlement but rather a vacation resort" IDK if being a mere vacation resort is any particular disqualification for coverage. One could strain to say that vacation resorts are never settlements (populated places) of any form.

Looking at the site today, it doesn't look very resorty to me, I really must ask for a citation for how it is presently a vacation resort. It could be second homes, or first homes for ranking lake staff. Aerial examination shows a typical, well kept-up development of rural-zoned homes; I live in a development of rural-zoned homes. Certainly, Rockledge looks much less seedy than Ash Fork, Arizona.

Yes, there was a "resort" builder there in the 1920s, but that facility does not seem to be reflected in the homes there today. In 1927 the focus at the location seemed to be on building private summer homes, as was common elsewhere in the National Forests.[5]

By the 1950, the homes at Rockledge are private improvements on "forest leases".[6]

To emphasize this, there is no longer a Rockledge Resort, but a Rockledge Summer Homeowners Association.[7] There are about 12 homes with utilities, not cabins.

On the face of it, this seems to be another USFS-sponsored "recreational residences" community, but one that did not get evicted and bulldozed like many of these communities, an example being Madera Canyon (Arizona)#History (4th paragraph). (Also Madera Canyon, Arizona). Over time, more of these "vacation resort" summer homes became year-round residences. It would be necessary to confirm this at some point; it might have a bit different history, but still subject to Forest Service permitting.

Really, a phone call Monday to Planning and Zoning can clear a lot of this up.

At least the Coconino County Planning and Zoning Commission is conversant with the name; discussing providing secure trash dumpsters, the commission asked last year, "What about the outlying homes, Rock Ledge area and such.. If locked how do all residents get keys." (February 23, 2022)

Over the miles to the southwest were larger settlements named Pilgrim Playground (church camp cabins),[8] Dairy Springs (campground and residences), and Double Springs (campground and residences). These settlements were evicted and demolished, well over 50 residences removed (1990s?). A historic building and the USFS re-wildernessed campgrounds named "Camp Mardear", "Dairy Springs", and "Double Springs" remain as examples of the fate the Rockledge homes somehow escaped (Location: Rockledge, AZ, 1965 Mormon Lake Quadrangle Topo).

There should be some USNF/Mormon Lake history here, perhaps more history in the demolished communities down the road than in the more affluent Rockledge homes that avoided the dozer blade.

IveGoneAway (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing much to merge, but if you want to expand it and merge rather than delete, then more power to you if you can do that. I kinda think you're extrapolating a lot from dumpsters and tire tracks, but I'm not against it, yea I applaud it, if you can build some content here. Elinruby (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, thank you for that encouragement. I am at the moment too deep into a couple of other wiki projects on Federal land. I have been wanting to contact Planning and Zoning about one of them, anyway. I have other sources; I just put down a couple for the sake of time. The Rockledge homes presently seem to be called a "subdivision", but I don't know of Coconino County or of Mormon Lake, Arizona.

All I think I would want to add after close would be to add a brief list of the four residential areas and the three church camps. Later, I could hope to list what I think might be an interesting combined history of the real estate under USFS jurisdiction. IveGoneAway (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No call backs today, its a holiday for the government, except teachers.

IveGoneAway (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK

I did get to speak with a realtor who has had listings around the lake, and has a friend living there. He could not speak to the histories of the housing. He says the area does get heavy snows and that the homes outside the town do not have do not have winterized water service and winter occupation requires hauling in water. The campgrounds have experienced closures due to fires.
Just as I got out of the car at home and Coconino Co. Planning and Zoning called back; very helpful and willing to talk. However, they can only talk about present zoning and plans, not the past, but directed me to university archives ... and their GIS.

Also, they can only talk about the 15% of the county that is not National Forest, National Park, Navajo Reservation, Military Base, and state parks; but the county can develop within the Federal land where there is compelling county interest. And they note that there are some private parcels enclaved within the National Forest, and those are subject to Coconino Co. zoning.

From the GIS,

There are about 80 private residential parcels on National Forest land on the west shore of the lake, some have no homes, some have 2 homes.
While there is no campground at the Rockledge private homes, there are Federal campgrounds next to private homes at Double Springs and Dairy Springs.

So, for the "merge", I am just thinking of a single sentence in Mormon Lake (second paragraph, after second sentence) now just to state the present situation:

On the north and west bluffs overlooking the lake are over 80 private USFS recreation residences in four tracts named, north to south, Rockledge, Dairy Springs, Montezuma Lodge, and Double Springs. They are built on National Forest parcels. While these are generally occupied in the summer; some may be occupied through the heavy winter snows, but water must "hauled-in" as their water supply is not winterized. The Forest Service operates older standard public campgrounds at Double Springs and Dairy Springs.

IveGoneAway (talk) 04:39, 22 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!} 18:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross English High School (Aurangabad)[edit]

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

All I can find are database entries like Just Dial and India Study Channel. I could find no WP:ORGDEPTH coverage for this school so can't see a passing of WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced and fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 24 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!} 04:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick Drummond[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 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. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Bahrain, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 11:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete routine coverage rather than in-depth coverage required to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:52, 17 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 14:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joel S. Montederamos[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. The sources are unreliable. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Christianity. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. A mention in a directory only found in my WP:BEFORE. SBKSPP (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RS. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Vicar-general is unlikely to be notable per se. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It seems that his position is within a local rather than the national hierarchy in Philippine Roman Catholicism so it does not automatically grant notability. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:53, 22 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 11:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yannis Assael[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted twice already for lack of notability. It has now been recreated by a WP:SPA. The last deletion discussion was marred by sock puppets, and I have some concerns about the appearance of a pattern of possible WP:UPE. The citation record looks a little better than last time, but in a high citation field still may fall short. Under the circumstances I would like to bring this to the attention of the community. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Greece. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wow, that was one very speedy deletion nomination, just minutes after the article was created. Regardless, I think that mentions on The Guardian [1], Wired (magazine) [2], Financial Times [4] and the research appearing on the front page of Nature (journal) alongside 3,000+ citations [5] make his presence very notable. Needless to mention that I have no connection with any of the events you described just above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech maniac92 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article lists several things he "co-developed," "co-authored" or otherwise participated in, but nothing to establish independent notability except his PhD. The above keep !vote is from the SPA mentioned in the nomination. small jars tc 13:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with SmallJars above, not really seeing much for strong independent notability for the BLP themselves compared to the team research they've been involved in. This doesn't seem to satisfy WP:PROF either. Looking at citation metrics Tech maniac mentions, the h-index is around 17, which is pretty typical for a regular professor that we wouldn't be writing an article for even in less cited fields. I usually don't buy a "highly cited" argument for notability on its own when a researcher is really only name-dropped in sources related to their research unless there's something extraordinary in the citations. Even what I thought would be the "best" source to maybe help with notability on the Forbes 30 under 30 article becomes really meh since they only dedicate a single sentence to Assael. Sources really don't seem to have much if at all to say about this person. KoA (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough has improved since the last go-around. A single achievement isn't enough to warrant a biography; the academic notability guideline is about evaluating success over a career. Here, there just isn't evidence of that kind of career. XOR'easter (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The spa-nature of the creation would push me to say delete, and an H-index of 17 is not extraordinary. Then again, several publications cited more 100 times, one more than 1600 times and another more than 500 times. Article should be watched to make sure it's not used promotionally, but does seem to be an academic of some notability. Jeppiz (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC) I've struck me vote to keep, following convincing argumentation by JoelleJay below. Still think it's about borderline case, but sitting it out without saying neither keep nor delete. Jeppiz (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If he weren't just one author among many on each of those publications, I'd find the citation profile more impressive. As it is, I don't think those figures can stand out in a highly-cited field. XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Single-authored articles are very rare in most academic fields. Being 3-5 authors on an academic article is very much the norm. Jeppiz (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which just makes it harder to tell who contributed to what. XOR'easter (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and it is not for us to speculate on. Academics with several highly cited publications meet WP:NACADEMIC for notability. Jeppiz (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my very honest opinion the article does pass WP:PROF. More specifically: the person has made a significant impact in the scholarly literature with several highly-cited articles and a solid number of citations, whilst the impact outside the academia appears to be notable too. Besides I don't see the same criteria apply to so many other AI researchers or computer scientists with much less notability or citations - have a look at Julie Carpenter, Tabitha Goldstaub, Rediet Abebe, Adji Bousso Dieng, Fatmah Baothman, Siddharth Batra, Pino Caballero Gil or Cansu Canca. It appears that some of the above-mentioned examples should be taken into account, but if we start examining other articles more closely, it becomes evident that the citation argument does not apply to all cases. With that said, I do believe that by closely monitoring the article it can be further-improved. You are right about the disputable notability in 2021, but in 2023 I think that the article can indeed stand in WP with no issues. Apologies for appearing as SPA, but I simply created the article as I noticed that it was previously deleted. That is all - I would really appreciate if we could focus on the subject and not the author. Thanks! Tech maniac92 (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes articles exist just because nobody has noticed them and taken the trouble to nominate them for deletion. One of those that you list has been tagged for dubious notability for two years now, for example. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The list goes on and on: Angelo Dalli, Alison Darcy, Kate Devlin, Gary Drescher and many others. I think that this dubious notability you are highlighting is indeed a big problem, but it does not apply to Yannis Assael at all. There are lots of AI researchers on WP with less notability, but due to WP's flexibility some of the criteria you mentioned are not really taken into account. Tech maniac92 (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"What about these other people?" is a quintessential example of an argument to avoid in a deletion debate. XOR'easter (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an extremely high-citation field characterized by particularly rapid inflation. Here are the Scopus citation profiles of the 44 coauthors of Assael with 5+ papers (a very generous cutoff) as well as those of his coauthors plus 56 coauthors of another AI researcher AfD'd recently:

Total citations: average: 6159, median: 2082, Assael: 814; w/ other AfD coauthors: 4807, 1696.

Total papers: 46, 26, 12; 59, 37.

h-index: 18, 15, 8; 19, 15.

Top 5 paper cites: 1st: 2319, 712, 564; 1499, 492. 2nd: 994, 306, 78; 694, 220. 3rd: 415, 143, 42; 348, 156. 4th: 309, 101, 31; 273, 123. 5th: 235, 82, 30; 203, 82.

I would say he is far from meeting the criteria for NPROF C1. JoelleJay (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete following JoelleJay's convincing analysis of this very highly cited field. I would expect a GS h-index well into the 30s for this field; 17 is not enough. Try again in 5-10 years time: until then Salt. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, too soon at this point in time per JoelleJay's superb analysis. --Mvqr (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoelleJay's analysis.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:04, 21 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 11:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Hunter/Carter McLean Featuring Silvana Estrada[edit]

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

Single source on page is a blog post from one of the artists. Found no reliable coverage. Plenty on the three as a live band but nothing on the album. Could redirect to Silvana Estrada since her article has a couple sentences of prose on the album whereas Charlie Hunter only has it listed in his discography, but I imagine most would rather delete since it's so close anyway. If that's so, that's fine by me as well. QuietHere (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Albums and songs, Mexico, and Rhode Island. QuietHere (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I can find are lists of performances the artists gave, nothing about this album. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, no significant coverage by reliable sources. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 00:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The amount of coverage is minimal and falls short of establishing the subject’s notability. Doesn’t meet GNG. Shawn Teller (talk) 03:31, 24 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 11:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Circle (Finnish band)[edit]

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

Appears to lack notability outside of their collaborative album Henki. Redirect there. The stuff sourced to The Quietus, and possibly the AllMusic Blog, might be worth merging. Unsure of the reliability of the rest. Redirect or delete all their albums as well, most of which source either no sources or only primary/unreliable ones.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Albums and songs, and Finland. QuietHere (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: Not so fast. It is never enough just to look at sources already in the article. The Circle article on Finnish Wikipedia has two more sources not in the English WP article, namely a piece by YLE.fi ("The best rock band in the world? A guide to the world of cult band Circle") and a piece by Rumba.fi (""When I was a child, I had a book that showed massive earthmoving cranes. This album would be suitable as its soundtrack" - in the assessment of Circle's Terminal"). YLE is a major national broadcaster. Rumba is a major Finnish rock music magazine and website. Together with the sources in Circle (Finnish band), these are sufficient to establish notability through coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources.

On the individual album articles, we have the choice of merging them here or keeping them. We should I think look at each of them individually, and not just at whether their English WP pages are cited, as the Finnish WP pages certainly have some sources. For example, Infektio (EN) is uncited, but Infektio (albumi) (FI) is cited to reviews at Desibeli.net and at Nuorgam. As another example, Earthworm (album) is reviewed (in English) by Pitchfork. The page also has links to Pitchfork's reviews for Circle's albums Henki, Tower, Forest, and Raunio. There must be many more album reviews out there, in both English and Finnish as I've only had a brief look (if longer than nom, it seems, however). So, at the least, a mass unconsidered deletion-and-redirection looks inappropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Keep. Apart from the Quietus feature already cited in the article, there's a decent enough biography at Allmusic. Plenty of coverage of the Dawson collab exists, so I think there's enough to pass the bar at WP:BAND. (Side note: Allmusic has quiet a few album reviews too [9], so it might pay to take care with those as well). Thanks :) — sparklism ^hey! 12:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all (as the nomination stands now). This one is just too much per Wikipedia:TRAINWRECK, and per WP:NEXIST every single one of the articles nominated could possibly be improved instead of being condemned uniformly due to the weaknesses of one. The band has a bland pre-Internet name that is tough to search for, but targeted searches like <"Jussi Lehtisalo" + "The Circle"> lead to some useful results, including the additional sources suggested by the voters above. Some of the albums could be redirected to the band's page, and that can be done as a standard editing process one-by-one, though some of the albums have pro reviews too. Step back and edit multiple articles with finesse instead of smashing the whole pile with a sledgehammer. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely a notable band with enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. A couple of articles in Helsingin Sanomat, for example; someone who has better access to both the newspaper and the language should be able to add them. They are regularely reviewed in Swedish media as well, not just in their home country, like a few examples from Dagens Nyheter or sv:Fria Tidningen: Dagens Nyheter 2011-11-29, Fria Tidningen 2010-09-25, Dagens Nyheter 2016-04-16, Fria Tidningen 2011-11-26 (seems to be unavailable on the website, but the entire review can be found through sv:Mediearkivet) and so on. /Julle (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the band per the sources identified above; procedural keep the albums as too large a group to evaluate in one AfD. Nominating all of the albums because you have concerns about most is not the way to go. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chiswick Chap has made a case for keeping. It is also far to difficult to assess such a long list and we are in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Lightburst (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem to be a case of WP:SNOW so if anyone would care to close this AfD now ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 24 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 Mirotenthes since it has been created with the existing article text, probably useful for reader, attribution Star Mississippi 11:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Microtenthes[edit]

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

This taxon has a baffling lack of presence on the web. I'm getting a grand total of two hits [10][11], both books from the 60s. I suspect that this may have been a classification that did not gain traction and quietly disappeared from the records, without even being synonymized. Further excavations welcome. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've found one additional mention in an extremely roundabout way. UC Berkeley in an ancient web directory hosts the files from a 1993 University of Texas CD called "THRINAXODON: DIGITAL ATLAS OF THE SKULL", included in which is a reprint from a 1961 paper in the Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard. This paper in turn cites a 1956 paper for the statement suggested that in Ericiolacerta these foramina indicated either a mobile prolongation of the snout or highly developed sense organs such as a rhinarium or vibrissae. Brink (1957a, p. 86) extends this interpretation to Diademodon, as does Attridge (1956, p. 67) for the therocephalian Microtenthes. The hosted document is at https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/synapsids/rowe/estes.html --(loopback) ping/whereis 09:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following that lead gets pretty hard though. That was not the only Attridge who did something of note in 1956 and nearly all hits for Attridge 1956 refer to the test pilot who managed to shoot down his own jet that year. --(loopback) ping/whereis 09:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've shot off an email to the UC Museum of Paleontology who hosts that archive to see if they may be some help in tracking down the Attridge paper. Will pass along anything if they get back to me. --(loopback) ping/whereis 09:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the UC professor got back to me. It's a misspelling that worked it's way into a few things back in the day. Full email reply included here:

Tracking down data quality issues is never silly and pointless. Unfruitful and vexing, yes, but not silly and pointless. However, in this case, I can solve your mystery.

Microtenthes SHOULD be deleted, because it is a misspelling of Mirotenthes. Here's the Attridge paper where he first describes Mirotenthes. You can also see it featured here <https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0117-4#Fig10> as part of an open access article on "transitional fossils".

Best wishes, Pat Holroyd

Patricia A. Holroyd, Ph.D.

Senior Museum Scientist

Museum of Paleontology

University of California

Berkeley, CA 94720}}

Answers the questions about why we can't find sources at least. --(loopback) ping/whereis 16:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent sleuthing! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would have said redirect if the misspelling was common enough in sources, but it doesn't really look to be a viable redirect in that sense where it would really be a significant source of traffic. KoA (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I created Mirotenthes with the existing article text, so it's really just a matter of what to do with this page. KoA (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! I think this is grounds to redirect to Mirotenthes and then build the article from there - there's a few dozen results on Google Scholars of varying degrees that can be cobbled together. Kazamzam (talk) 12:20, 19 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. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marikamba Temple, Sagara[edit]

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

Does not meet Notability guidelines WP:N , WP:ORG and religious organization WP:NRELORG Nimmoun (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Hinduism, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not a religious organisation, but a building, so WP:NRELORG and WP:ORG do not apply. A poor article, as are many articles relating to India, but a surviving 16th century temple would be considered notable anywhere. It would undoubtedly be heritage-listed if India had a decent heritage-listing system, which sadly it does not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The article title it self mentioned "temple" and as per Wikipedia's WP:NRELORG : "Individual religious organizations (whether called congregations, synods, synagogues, temples, churches, etc.) must meet the notability guideline for organizations" .so this Temple doesn't meet Wikipedia's Notability criteria ( WP:N , WP:ORG , WP:NRELORG )Nimmoun (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. You've misread the guideline. No, that isn't what it says (although I agree that it isn't very well phrased). Please reread it. It means when "temple" refers to the organisation itself, not when it refers to an individual building. The correct guideline for these is WP:GEOFEAT. And as you nominated it for deletion, we already know you want it deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GEOFEAT : "Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Please reread above guidelines WP:GEOFEAT. Either building or temple, this article is not notable so Delete it due to Wikipedia's Notability criteria WP:N , WP:ORG , WP:NRELORG,WP:GEOFEAT Nimmoun (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: I added two references and removed the notability tag. I spent about half an hour on this as an editor well outside my area of expertise who does not speak Kannada. I grant that the references aren't academic, but given:

the notable festival
the association of a Hindu saint with the temple's founding,
the adoption of Marikamba by a ruler described as the "ablest" of his dynasty
the folklore regarding the plague breaking out when temple was messed with (source verified with Google Translate)

...and come on, they had me at "16-foot chariot". How could this not be notable??? I am quite certain that more sources for all of this can be found. Those that are there are weak-ish, although better than in many India articles, but they do support much of the text.

Also, based on the image, the temple appears to be in very good condition, which is itself notable for a building of this age. It definitely belongs in a register of monuments. (Side note, the image also appears on the municipality website, so someone should look into its copyright status.) Elinruby (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Elinruby Sir your added two new sources but one is not related to this temple and one is not working it is showing 404 error.

Source: www.newindianexpress.com/states/karnataka/2022/mar/21/marikamba-samiti-denies-charges-of-discrimination-over-fair-stalls-2432360.amp this source is about Kote Shri Marikamba Temple located in Shivamogga city .Google map link :g.co/kgs/xz3bHR and This Article is about Temple located in Sagara, Karnataka. Both temple are different only goddess name is same.
source: www.timesofindia.com/city/mysuru/nine-day-marikamba-jatra-starts-in-karnatakas-sagar-town-with-mangalya-puja/amp_articleshow/97712584.cms this source is showing "404" ERROR .Nimmoun (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Marikamba Temple, Sagara this entire article is written on only one primery source that is web.archive.org/web/20130830084338/http://sagaracity.gov.in/node/132 this website is not reliable to support the claims made on the article beacuse the same website removed all the information from there site here is the new updated Website of Sagara City Municipal Council kannada version sagaracity.mrc.gov.in/kn/city-tour and English version: sagaracity.mrc.gov.in/en/city-tour .

(note: the above mentioned Websites are blocking traffic from Non Indian users, please try to use Indian VPN to access this site. this website only Mentioned name and photo of the temple no other information are available on this website they removed all earlier informations.)
As other users mentioned to keep this article due to "the notable festival,the association of a Hindu saint with the temple's founding,the adoption of Marikamba by a ruler described as the "ablest" of his dynasty ,the folklore regarding the plague breaking out when temple was messed with " all this are written on the basis of the Sagara City Municipal Council Website, Now this information are not available on the same website. Now question is if it is notable, historical, ancient temple and all the information is true than why this information are removed ? How can Wikipedia consider this archive site is reliable to keep this article ?. Now this article have multiple reason for deletion along with earlier notability issue other reasons are WP:RELIABILITY, WP:VERIFY, WP:OR earlier reasons WP:N , WP:ORG , WP:NRELORG, WP:GEOFEAT Nimmoun (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your multiple voting! Use "Comment" rather than "Delete" to prefix your comments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)-- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 16 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!} 08:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - whilst there are obviously a lot of religious buildings in India, I think it would be weird if a 400 year old building somehow wasn't notable. There are a few refs on the page, I think it is highly likely there are many more in Kannada (and/or other local languages). JMWt (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no idea whether the municipality changed to a different website, but it would not affect reliability, which would be weak anyway. The issue is whether the article *can* be sourced. I don't know why you're getting a 404 on the timesofindia link, but it works for me and I am not in India. Maybe try rebooting? I concede that the second one is a different temple to the same goddess in another city; my mistake. I saw several other mentions of other temples, but that one got me, you're right. However, I am with JMWt. It's hard to agree that a temple that is still in use after 400 years is not notable. @Kautilya3: is in touch with Wikiproject India and perhaps can put us in touch with somebody with Kannada or other language skills who can confirm or deny that the lack of sourcing is/is not a language issue. Elinruby (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I removed the reference for the wrong Marikamba temple. Elinruby (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems to be the most important temple for this subdistrict, attracting half-a-million pilgrims for its triennial festival. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:15, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Talvik[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO for lack of coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Estonia. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 07:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NBIO, no WP: SIGCOV.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 07:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Cyprus, France, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to fail WP:GNG, the only coverage I could find under a search for "Andres Talvik suursaadik" consisted of an interview, some government press releases from when he presented his credentials, and a couple of times he was quoted in the media, but no actual secondary coverage of him that would contribute to a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage by WP:RS to establish notability and satisfy GNG. Shawn Teller (talk) 03:27, 24 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Sångeland[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO for lack of coverage. The third reference provided doesn't even mention her. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Sweden. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 07:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, China, Mongolia, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added better sources and coverage (and removed one of the English refs), like the longer profile from Göteborgs-Posten, the added newspaper articles accessible through sv:Mediearkivet. Sångeland is a career diplomat, having not only served as ambassador to Malaysia, Iran and China, but also headed the Asia and Oceania unit at the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and better coverage than apparent in the article when taken to AfD exists. /Julle (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:GNG seems to be met. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's borderline and most of the coverage is from the single event of being appointed as Ambassador to China, but a search under "Helena Sångeland ambassadör" led me to believe that enough SIGCOV exists to make Sångeland pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a long piece about her in Göteborgs-Posten already in 2005, though, which was pretty central for my decision to argue for the article to be kept. /Julle (talk) 22:24, 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 merge to Cirencester#Transport. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

58 Cirencester town service[edit]

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

This article without a shadow of a doubt fails WP:GNG. Absolutely no significant coverage for this one. Only thing I can see is one or two local newspaper hits on Google News on funding; apart from that, absolutely nothing else. Completely run-on-the-mill bus route and zero notability. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides hyper-local coverage of the route being cut, there are no sources. This is not a notable bus route. No coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Routine and local but not hyper-local. Peter James (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/747 Uppingham–Leicester. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERNOM and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Garuda3 (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we get it, you're salty your other bus article got deleted. This fails GNG by a mile and you seem to agree since you've yet to make any argument otherwise. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's that if anyone else but you wrote that comment you'd be down on them like a ton of bricks. Garuda3 (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually been trying to respond to others' comments less, even when they're clearly wrong. You, on the other hand, have been bludgeoning more lately. And such a comment would not provoke such a reply from me, actually. Regardless, you don't seem to disagree with the substance of what I said, so this appears to simply be you airing your own grievances. It's really not that hard to avoid having your articles AfD'd, by the way. Just ask me - none of mine have ever been, because I check for notability before creating articles, not the other way around. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
check for notability would imply that there is actually a specific "notability" bar to meet when we both know such a thing doesn't exist. GNG asks for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject which my bus route articles have. It does not exclude local coverage. Everything else, including essays, is entirely subjective. Evidently various editors do not like bus content on Wikipedia despite the articles meeting WP:GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't care whether it's buses, train stations, beauty pageants, CEOs, or yachts. I care that articles meet GNG, which the vast majority of editors do not interpret the way you do. However, I mostly watch the transportation deletion sorting page. Your accusation of bias is ludicrous - you really think someone who spends most of his time on Wikipedia writing about trains hates mass transit? "Everything I don't like is subjective, and therefore my interpretation wins" isn't a compelling argument. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has actually quoted the relevant part of GNG that prohibits local coverage, From my time here I've learnt editors will "interpret" guidelines however they like. You keep suggesting the articles don't meet GNG, but haven't said which part of the guideline actually excludes them. Whereas on the previous AfD I completed a source assessment table that demonstrated they do meet GNG. Point me to where I said you hate mass transit? Garuda3 (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "No coverage" is a lie, obviously because there are two sources here that count towards GNG. An WP:ATD would be to merge the article to Cirencester or to a new article on Cotswold Green. I once again repeat that GNG does not exclude local coverage. Garuda3 (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue further. It fails GNG and you don't have to accept it but it's what it is. You can't expect 2 sources in local newspapers to be "significant coverage". It sounds like what you're trying to do is create an article on every single random bus route in the country and you think you're improving the encyclopedia by doing that but you're really not and in fact, you're doing the opposite. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section on significant coverage ("Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.) does not mention whether the source is local or not.

in fact, you're doing the opposite you can't just throw around accusations like that without any reasoning. Garuda3 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, your only sources are ones to do with funding in the local area and nothing else. It's like saying that a new local road which is being built but has had funding issues and these funding issues featured in the local news so it is notable. So, that's what you're saying? Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There are plenty of road articles on Wikipedia. Garuda3 (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The info. here is already in the Cirencester page. It could be repeated in the Stratton page if desired. However, this article should not be kept as a standalone page as it fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a local newspaper. WP:NOTNP and Wikipedia:News articles though essays make a valid point — the news should not be transitory but of likely historical significance. This article is an example of bus route funding issues; yes, of importance to the places affected and could possibly be mentioned in the Wikipedia pages for those places. It could also be used as an example in an article on UK bus route funding problems, which is the bigger issue here. But common sense dictates that service withdrawals/additions, timetable changes, route variations, fare increases (which could all be reported in the local press) are not reasons to give every local bus route its own page. Rupples (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The info is in the Cirencester page because I added it in. I've already had to fight (via the talk page) to keep it there with someone reverting my edits claiming it to be "excessive detail" (despite the section being shorter than the already existing road and rail sections). Garuda3 (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The three sources in the article all discuss the bus route. The third source, "Joy after vital Cirencester bus route saved", devotes 584 words exclusively to the bus route. If others agree with User:Rupples that the information is better contained elsewhere, then merge/redirect to Cirencester as an ATD. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is entirely routine. Wikipedia is not the place to report the local residents' (justified) joy every time something gets funded. BruceThomson (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cirencester. It's notable but really short and most of the content is already in the suggested target. Do move the references that are missing at the target, then redirect! Failing that, just keep. gidonb (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the coverage is local and routine, I'm not particularly against a merge but I don't think this info is really that notable. Suonii180 (talk) 21:19, 8 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!} 22:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cirencester per my own stricken conclusion above, WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. The reason for the change is that the references, that I indicated as needing to be merged, have been merged after writing my opinion. In other words, the suggested "smerge" has been completed. gidonb (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I ask though that you keep an eye on the Cirencester page as there are editors over there trying to remove any mention of the bus route. Garuda3 (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Garuda3, if I see something, I'll say something! gidonb (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Cirencester#Transport. It's more useful there than as a standalone article. Peter James (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nukerstt (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus still isn't clear, alternatives to deletion have been brought up recently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taking Out The Trash (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I disagree with editors claiming the route isn't notable, there is some merit in merging to Cirencester as that does feel like a good home for this content. Happy to support a merge as a WP:ATD. Garuda3 (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cirencester#Transport, whether this passes GNG or not I see no real reason for it to be a WP:SPLIT from the main article, especially considering how short the bus section is there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely nothing notable about this bus route. Ajf773 (talk) 08:54, 20 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 List of craters on the Moon: A–B. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artsimovich (crater)[edit]

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

Tiny lunar crater that does not pass WP:GNG, a search of Google Scholar found only a single passing mention. The article's biography provides no indication of any in-depth coverage of the crater itself. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not a hoax, mentioned in plenty of reliable sources - but passing mentions only. WP:NOTDATABASE, and this crater does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Delete or redirect to List of craters on the Moon: A–B. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taking Out The Trash (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of craters on the Moon: A–B. Not really notable enough for Wikipedia, doesn't have any special connections to anything, but is a good addition to the greater list. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 00:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of craters on the Moon: A-B. Although the article does not have enough significant coverage and fails WP:NASTRO, it should still redirect to the general list. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:06, 19 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. Now a Merge with BlueOregon can be considered. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Chisholm[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kari Chisholm (2nd nomination)

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

Notability was shakey when deletion was first considered. Editors involved in that discussion promised to improve the page, but those additions were minor and Chrisholm and BlueOregon are even less newsworthy now than they were in 2013. This reads like a vanity page. NASAvegas (talk) 00:01, 3 February 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 February 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I find are Blue Oregon articles (where he works) and him talking about the Heisman trophy. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there an underscore in his name? That seems to screw up the search when you click on the links in the nomination (to search for coverage). Oaktree b (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I've never done one of these before so maybe I messed up the formatting somehow? NASAvegas (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NASAvegas Fixed. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was concerned it might have been an attempt to avoid a previously SALTED article, but that's not the case. No worries! Oaktree b (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article in the Wall Street Journal is significant coverage. This article in Roll Call is significant. The article in the Register Guard likely is sufficient. A newer blurb, with information about the subject's business interests was published by the City of Portland. ---Enos733 (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of article's cited sources is actually specifically about Chisholm, and that's the Wall Street Journal article detailing his Heisman forecasting. The Roll Call article (not currently cited) is another good one, but that makes two national pieces. The Register-Guard article is about bloggers across the state of Oregon and includes a few quotes from Chisholm. The other cited sources are mostly small, local outlets in which Chisholm is mentioned in passing (e.g. Lake Oswego Review, KPOJ), or websites that Chisholm operates (BlueOregon, StiffArm Trophy). There is no evidence that I'm seeing of sustained coverage in prominent publications. The City of Portland link you provide is clearly a bio submitted by Chisholm. NASAvegas (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would assert that two good national sources + local coverage usually is enough for a GNG pass. - Enos733 (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The local coverage is just mentions in passing, though. There are no local articles (at least that I'm seeing) where Chrisholm is the primary subject of the reporting. In one of the cited Oregonian articles, his name isn't even mentioned once—there's just a brief reference to BlueOregon. The link to the other Oregonian article doesn't work. In fact, links to ~75% of the citations are broken. Let's be honest here: standards for notability were more lax a decade ago, which is why this article exists. As a new submission it would never get through AfC today. NASAvegas (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The generally accepted bar is significant coverage in three independent reliable sources. Im only seeing two here although it does seem odd that no in-depth local coverage has been found, I'd be surprised if it didn't exist... Therefore a borderline WP:NEXIST keep might be in order in that situation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This Willamette Week article is strong local coverage that focuses on Chisholm's conflict of interest issues. Referenced on the BlueOregon article but not here. NASAvegas (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see issues with two of these sources. I was under the impression that RollCall is a trade paper for politics and doesn't count towards GNG per WP:ORGIND. The Register Guard article includes quotes from Chisholm, but doesn't appear to actually contain WP:INDEPENDENT, in-depth coverage of him. Remember that he doesn't inherit notability from coverage of BlueOregon per WP:INHERITORG. QuintinK (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either weak keep or merge into BlueOregon as a less desirable second option. I think this just scraped by in terms of coverage although I do question whether we need a page both for the defunct blog and its publisher. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could we merge BlueOregon into Kari Chisholm? NASAvegas (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not as a result of this discussion, no. But we could do it separately. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would BlueOregon likely meet WP:NCORP? I suspect probably not. - Enos733 (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think they probably would, the problem comes in separating coverage of BlueOregon and Chisholm because it seems to have been primarily their project. IMO we should treat it more like Chisholm's blog than Chisholm's employer. Also note that whether they own or are employed by the blog the notability standard for blogs is Wikipedia:Notability (web) not NCORP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to improve this article by trimming down unnecessary content and adding citations to some of the additional sources discussed here (namely the Roll Call and Willamette Week pieces). But this is still a delete for me. The Roll Call piece isn't even 500 words. It's really a stretch to call that significant national coverage. (The WSJ article is only slightly longer at ~700). NASAvegas (talk) 03:42, 10 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!} 01:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on what I'm seeing here, I'm leaning towards delete. It would be helpful for people arguing 'keep' to provide the WP:THREE best sources to establish notability here in the discussion. I agree that the Willamette Week article meets the full source criteria, but I don't see other sources. RollCall is arguably a trade magazine and can't be used towards notability per WP:ORGIND. I also agree that BlueOregon may need to be merged here, if we keep. The WW article suggests they're inextricably linked.

QuintinK (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For me its WW, WSJ, and Roll Call. I don't agree with the argument that Roll Call is a trade mag, I can't find any WP:RS calling it that either. What source are you relying on for the trade magazine designation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roll Call is a trade publication for DC political insiders, according to the Washingtonian. The NYT obituary of its founder quotes him as saying Roll Call is "part trade paper." I'm not questioning if it's a reliable source; I'm just saying it can't be used to establish notability per the norms for trade publications. At this point, I see the WW and WSG pieces as meeting the full requirements for sources. That's two good sources for notability, which is marginal. QuintinK (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three thoughts on that... First is that Chisholm doesn't appear to be a DC insider, they're a provincial (no offense) figure. The second is that the Washingtonian's brush is both a bit broad and not specific, The Hill (newspaper) for example is routinely used for notability purposes and is not broadly accepted as a trade mag. Third "part trade paper" =/= "trade paper" anymore than wikipedia being part gazette makes us a gazette. Is there anyone who explicitly says that Roll Call is a trade mag? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WW article ("Sins of Omission") is structured as a criticism of Chisholm's dual work as political consultant and political journalist / publisher. If we're saying that article (in a local alt-weekly) is one of the two or three sources that establishes notability, then you'd think more of his Wikipedia article (beyond the one sentence I recently added) would address this perceived controversy. But that would, of course, be excessive, and speaks to the problem of allowing articles like this to exist when sourcing is so thin. NASAvegas (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article should include more substantive discussion of that article and be less puffy in general. I also think it would be appropriate to merge BlueOregon into this article. I'm not sure if you're familiar with Willamette Week, but they have the most serious newsroom of any Portland paper. Their work is high-quality and widely read. I'm going to go with a weak keep for this article. It drags its belly over the WP:GNG bar, but it is over it. QuintinK (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very familiar with the Willamette Week. And to be clear, I *don't* believe that the conflict of interest controversy needs much more discussion here. (Maybe one other sentence at most.) I'm just noting that when you point to a Willamette Week article as being one of the three most important sources for establishing Chrisholm's notability, it logically follows that the substance of that article should be well represented in Chrisholm's Wikipedia article. In practice, though, that feels like coatracking. NASAvegas (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see No consensus right now. Should editors seriously consider the Merge option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears appropriate that BlueOregon be merged into Kari Chisholm. However, I think that would require a separate discussion following this one, since this AFD is about the Chisholm article I voted to weak keep above. I don't think it would make sense to add this article into an article titled "BlueOregon." QuintinK (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. - Enos733 (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree. NASAvegas (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge as described above. There is probably enough to cross the WP:GNG hurdle, but merging the content to another article may also be appropriate, given how light this article is. --Jayron 32 14:34, 17 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 17:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Slam Single[edit]

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

I don't see evidence of long-standing notability for the "grand slam single" hit by Ventura in the 1999 National League Championship Series outside of the context of the 1999 NLCS. Nor do the occurrences in 1970 or 1976 rise to the level of this being a notable subject for its own page. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keepity keep - interesting article - also big big shout out to user materialscientist for their diligence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.162.241.244 (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1999 National League Championship Series#Game 5, as an WP:ATD. Not notable game per WP:NSPORTSEVENT. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:48FF:3AE6:91BB:FED1 (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mainly because the final section is ~~interesting and~~ useful and provides historical context beyond the play itself. Were it not for that section, I'd say merge into 1999 National League Championship Series#Game 5. ---Jameboy (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jameboy, "it's interesting" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some references in the article focus on the single itself rather than the game, establishing notability independent of the playoff game/series it is a part of. Frank Anchor 16:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Athletic does. That's one. The other references include YouTube links and Baseball Reference, not significant coverage. The Las Vegas Review Journal and MLB.com references are not focused on this one event. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage of the rule prior to 1920 that allowed a Grand Slam Single has been covered not just in the MLB.com article listed (which is not independent) but in The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs, which is independent and reliable. Plus there's the Athletic article which focuses entirely on the single, that's two sources right there, there's your "multiple". And the historical context can't really be merged into the article on the NLCS, so for that reason the article should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article subject has sufficient notability for a standalone article, satisfying GNG and SIGCOV. Shawn Teller (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Smartyllama. Plus there is other enduring coverage, for example here and here. Rlendog (talk) 13:36, 24 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. Between the withdrawal by the sockpuppet nominator, the lack of editors arguing for Delete and the sock activity, consider this a procedural Keep. Those who didn't want Keep advocated a Merge. Editors can set about merging content to a target article after this AFD is closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pak Sar Jamin Sad Bad[edit]

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

Not notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (books); the sources are mainly about the author's death. Foxsh (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note - "Withdrawn by nominator". This nomination page has been withdrawn by the nominator by myself. The novel is significant and also popular in Bengali language. Foxsh (talk) 10:19, 18 February 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}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the author's page at Humayun Azad#Literary works. Joyous! | Talk 02:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per above. WesSirius (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not a notable novel, see: Wikipedia:BOOKCRIT. The novel is not popular among readers community, it has not any English translation nor it has won any single award. The author's all works are not notable. 43.245.123.49 (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to author's page at Humayun Azad#Literary works. The novel has no literary significance in the Bengali literature sector, moreover the author is not so significant too that any of his work would have an Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.67.157.231 (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book received significant coverage in Bangladesh including negative ones from prominent author Humayun Ahmed and member of parliament Delwar Hossain Sayeedi who called for his arrest after the book was published. It satisfies point one, the book has received independent coverage, and five, the author is significant who was targeted for assassination by Islamists for writing this book, of Wikipedia:Notability (books). For reference, I would point out coverage in sources 1, 2, 3 and 4. See the contributions of the nom and 103.67.157.231 overlap at Women in the Bangladesh Army, a case of the Wikipedia:QUACK.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vinegarymass911. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @আফতাবুজ্জামান:, @আফতাব ভাই; এই তথ্যসূত্রটি নিবন্ধটিতে যুক্ত করে দিন, এবং এটিও। Murir Tin (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:, @Vinegarymass911:, Yes, you are right, the novel is very significant in Bengali literature. Murir Tin (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The novel is one of the top selling novels of Bangladesh, and another user has already added a good reference recently from the Indian newspaper The Hindu. Jurir Tin (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gurir Tin (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Novel is notable. Jhurir Tin (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I want to have this nomination page to be deleted. Foxsh (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD page needs to be kept for historical reasons (and others have commented in this page) Tropicalkitty (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But you can withdraw the nomination, as nobody else has asked for the article to be deleted. See WP:WDAFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger:, I am withdrawing this nomination. Foxsh (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added one reference that is a solid proof of the book's notability. Pabbay (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone please do a sockpuppeting check here? Murir Tin, Gurir Tin, Jurir Tin, Jhurir Tin? Could you make it a little less obvious? No opinion yet on the notability, though The Daily Star looks good for the start (BD News and Hindu are a passing mention). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The book's notability has not been proven by The Daily Star or The Hindu newspaper news. We need strong news and reviews about the novel. 116.58.202.78 (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The book has been covered in English-language books such as [12] and [13]. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The novel is very notable - Thanks to @Phil Bridger:. 116.58.201.76 (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we get some admin attention? This has become quite a mess, and I feel we can see one person talking to themselves through voting for keep and delete from various accounts.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. I think the best thing to do would be to close this discussion as void and to let a good-faith editor renominate it if needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Vinegarymass911: (I feel that he is a Bengali) and also the novel is notable according to @Phil Bridger:'s two mentioned books. 43.245.121.253 (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vinegarymass911.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see this socking in this page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Murir Tin.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:06, 23 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.