Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 18	February 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sprucedale, Arizona[edit]

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

What with the citation from the dude ranch association, one might have expected someone to have noticed that the narrative in question describes a pair of ranches, not a town. The version of the same story on the ranch's website is essentially the same. The "Espero" post office was on the other ranch and seems likely to have been a 4th class PO. As it stands, there is no evidence that there was a settlement here beyond the ranches, and I do not see the present facility as notable in its own right. Mangoe (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Skynxnex (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a couple of non-notable ranches inexplicably described as a settlement. We are not an exhaustive list of random named locations. Dronebogus (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth independent coverage. Kathlene Smoot (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Does not represent a notable place. Alex-h (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient independent SIGCOV for notability. If there was adequate evidence of notability, then an article would be justified. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:16, 26 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!} 22:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teal Bend, Missouri[edit]

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

A group of vacation homes/cabins/fishing resort that got entered into GNIS and then made it into Wikipedia. Much like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macks Camp, Missouri and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pom-o-sa Heights, Missouri, this is another one of those neighborhoods that have sprung up in the Warsaw area around Truman Lake/Lake of the Ozarks that don't meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Talk 19:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Missouri. Hog Farm _Talk 19:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete It's clearly a late-1950s development, which apparently has an HOA, and that's about all I could find. Mangoe (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 23:28, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Rock, Arizona[edit]

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

Could not find any evidence of an actual settlement here. Maps show only a few buildings. –dlthewave ☎ 19:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 19:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Navajo Nation: Clearly within their traditional territory. Elinruby (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no justification provided for a redirect. Nobody is going to search for this. Dronebogus (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 23:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:GEOLAND, no reliable sources showing the subject exists. A redirect would only make sense if the subject was mentioned in another article, but it isn't. Hut 8.5 12:50, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coyote Springs, Arizona[edit]

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

No evidence of a settlement; maps show a few buildings and corrals next to a spring. –dlthewave ☎ 19:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 19:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence this “exists” in the proper sense; just a name on a map, maybe a small ranch. Dronebogus (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 23:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:GEOLAND, lack of reliable sources showing the subject exists. Hut 8.5 12:42, 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!} 05:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Bridges[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here doesn't pass WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Cambodia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The LVO honour and the honorary professorship may count for something, but probably insufficient. The coverage looks routine and the article is CV-like. JohnmgKing (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 23:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO for lack of coverage. His name is common and a search yields many namesakes. LibStar (talk) 05:08, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Edgar[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here doesn't pass WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Cambodia, Uzbekistan, and North Macedonia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 23:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search yields routine coverage, not indepth coverage of Edgar as the subject. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 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 unless further sourcing appears. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saidmurod Davlatov[edit]

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

Recently created cross-wiki by new users. I admit I'm not familiar with Russian sources, but none of these seem particularly reliable to me (nonamer sites without a ruwiki article).

Ref 1 is the list of "Top 100 most influential Muslims in Russia", where Davlatov is featured in 2 sentences, nowhere near significant coverage. Refs 2 and 3 are from Eksmo, a publishing house he works with. Ref 4 is an interview with the entry piece being overly promotional. Ref 5 is another interview. This one has "Партнерский материал" at the bottom, meaning affiliated material. Likely another promo piece. Ref 6 is from SAMO which he founded. Ref 7 is from a magazine, which you have to subscribe to if you want to read. This brochure is available on their website, which is the film poster of a movie about himself, so probably just advertising given the logos on it. Ref 8 is about the aforementioned film, which he is greatly involved in. Likely promo as well given everything. The entire thing is on YouTube with 500 views btw. Refs 9 and 10 are from a book selling site that sells his two books. Refs 11 and 12 are about a school he funded, nothing about him in particular so not SIGCOV.

Given that there are no reliable, independent and significant sources about the subject, and that this is likely self-promotion just like the sources, I believe this person does not pass the GNG and is not notable. ~Styyx^Talk? 22:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Tajikistan. ~Styyx^Talk? 22:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see any reason to doubt Eksmo's claim that he's one of their bestselling authors, and this leads me to believe that he would pass WP:NAUTHOR for having multiple notable books. But there are no references to reviews in this article, and I don't know where to even start looking for mainstream or academic reviews of Tajik literature (google scholar was a 0). @Moem-Meom:, if you can find these, please let us know? -- asilvering (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG.--Kadı Message 16:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:20, 26 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!} 22:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ch Amir Bilal[edit]

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

I find no sources beyond spam-bait sites. No coverage in RS for this lawyer. Oaktree b (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, just for the sake of promotion. Fails WP:POLITICIAN too. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:46, 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 Community Unit School District 300. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Community School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was originally deleted in 2007 as having no evidence of notability. At that time it was over 6000 characters in length. The present article could not be said to be a 're-creation' of the original as it is a small snippet with a single school district reference. As there has been no advance in the support for notability, suggesting this be deleted once more. I did try to redirect to the village article where the school appears in a list; this has been reverted. The article isn't really suitable to speedy deletion, nor would PROD be useful as that would plainly be rejected quickly. Thank you. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Community Unit School District 300, per WP:ATD and precident described in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I wouldn't oppose outright deletion just in case you're experimenting with ranked choice non voting, as there are numerous schools named "Westfield" (37 per NCES), a redirect might be more confusing than helpful. 174.212.212.6 (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 19:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I think the best vote I can give is to redirect. As the user above notes, Westfield is not uncommon. I think either using this as a disambiguation page for future Westfields and having the IL CUSD on a list of Westfields might be better. IDK how that would be managed other than a full article seems not to be the move.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:58, 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. No case was made for keeping the article. The argument of Joyous! seems decisive. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Canyon Mesa, Arizona[edit]

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

Small subdivision outside of Prescott. Sources do not treat this as a distinct community. –dlthewave ☎ 19:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 19:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget to Prescott, Arizona if it is not a distinct community. Otherwise it could be kept if it is proven to pass WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 19:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a small neighborhood that isn't mentioned in the Prescott AZ page, and is hardly notable enough for a merge. Joyous! | Talk 21:45, 26 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. The only recommendation for keeping the article was based on sources that turned out not to demonstrate notability of this particular island. Joyous! | Talk 21:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pig Island (Ottawa)[edit]

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

BEFORE searches did not return any significant coverage for this tiny island; it is only mentioned briefly in passing. Does not seem to be a likely search target for a redirect. –dlthewave ☎ 17:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. –dlthewave ☎ 17:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Potential keep. A google search brings up several websites with some listing tours and others showing information about the island, which would fall under significant coverage of WP:GNG. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 01:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

StarryNightSky11, would you be willing to share a few of those links? –dlthewave ☎ 16:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's this kinda small but maybe relevant, and this. Review and see what you think of them. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 21:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first one is a Foursquare listing with no information beyond the location, so it doesn't contribute to notability. I'm not even sure whether Foursquare verifies these entries or just scrapes them from geographic databases.

The second is an article about a completely unrelated island with pigs on it in the Bahamas. –dlthewave ☎ 00:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops no good here then. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 01:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not sure. If it is kept, a hatnote to Pig Island (Bahamas) should be created. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 19:43, 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 redirect to Poole. (now that there is a mention at the target article). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

County Gates[edit]

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

It's a roundabout. The only references I can find are about road accidents that have happened on it - that can't be enough for the GNG can it? JMWt (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JMWt, it really depends on the focus. If the focus is a busy and dangerous roundabout, where many accidents happen, we get a bit in the direction of notability. If mentioned as a random location where one or more accidents happened not so much. gidonb (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK found this item. It counts a bit I suppose. It talks about how the roundabout is backed up after an accident. This one is more of the random type. This is insufficient and the next items in Google News are less good. Still looking for an alternative to deletion. gidonb (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a roundabout it doesn't seem to be notable, but the article mentions it as a historic crossing point between counties and there might be some notability in that history if you can find it, but it'll require more detailed searches than I've managed in a couple of minutes on google. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete If you are going to claim that something is "historic", you need to provide some evidence. I'm having extreme trouble just getting past random juxtapositions of the two words; the best I found simply established it as a placename, but didn't describe it or even locate it. Mangoe (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Poole. Do not keep per WP:GNG and WP:GEOROAD and do not delete per WP:V, WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. gidonb (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't mentioned in the article about Poole though. Unless it is it will just be confusing to those who don't know what it is and unhelpful to those who do. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will add it to the transportation section. gidonb (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. gidonb (talk) 14:24, 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 speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn, citing WP:HEY. Separate discussions can now take place as to whether the article should be moved to 'Death of Trisha Cee'. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trisha Cee[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. WP:NMUSICIAN. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Africa. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article was in bad shape. I've improved it. Her death sparked protests, a national conversation about healthcare, arrests and an international reaction to heavy handed police response. It's tough improving articles about South Sudan as my ability to assess sources is low, so I've tried to make the best judgements I can, but I think she passes the notability threshold. It could be said that this is more of an event article, and Death of Trisha Cee is more appropriate, I'm undecided on that yet, but let's keep anyway. CT55555(talk) 20:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN by nominator: I see sufficient work here to justify a WP:HEY close, and have withdrawn my nomination. Any non involved editor may, should they feel it appropriate, close this discussion, unless another editor opines that it should be deleted. I am exactly on the borderline about bio-vs-event article after these improvements.. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:04, 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 19:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Milk Records[edit]

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

Seems to be s defunct and non-notable music label. The page hasn't had any references for many years, I can't find anything that would count towards the GNG JMWt (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This was a small-time indie that was a feeder label for a few years for Drive-Thru Records; it had a few noteworthy acts signed, but they mostly gained their fame after they jumped to bigger labels. It only ever put out about a dozen LPs. I don't think it really meets the sense in WP:MUSIC of one of the more important indies; I don't really know that the encyclopedia is better without the article, as it serves a useful interlinking function between bands, but I don't really see it ever being much more than a short list article. Chubbles (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it serves a useful interlinking function between bands – wouldn't a category be able to serve this purpose? small jars tc 21:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that'd just get deleted, because someone will come along and say, "why do we have a category for a non-notable label?" It's a catch-22. Chubbles (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's frustrating. Could a navbox be justified without a corresponding article? small jars tc 16:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone ever use navboxes? In any case, without a supporting article, it also would surely get canned. Chubbles (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to locate and sources that meet GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:07, 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 delete. The single "keep" !vote argues rather eloquently that sources will most likely never be found. Randykitty (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Saddler[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:59, 19 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) 17:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- GiantSnowman - The majority of topics on this player are not going to be primary sources, they are going to be database sources. There might be an odd profile or two from a newspaper, but everything else is just going to be in passing mention minus an injury, arrest or death.
- I've found 2 mentions of him from games at https://www.thestkittsnevisobserver.com/village-lifts-footballs-carnival-cup/ and https://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/10/12/sports/st-kitts-svg-advance-to-second-round-on-dramatic-last-night/. I don't know what else can really be expected though. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Database sources and passing mentions does not equate to notability. Giant Snowman 18:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's from St. Kitts and Nevis which has a total of 2 newspapers and a handful of news websites with a small population and low internet participation. ESPN and other sites have never covered any players from St. Kitts. I don't know what kind of coverage is expected given the situation.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - He played for the national team along with being a pro player. There's just not going to be full page biographies on players who aren't named Messi, especially from smaller countries like St. Kitts and Nevis.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had a look and couldn't find anything better than the two sources above, both of which are way, way short of meeting WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 25 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Castle (Adult entertainer)[edit]

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

A BLP, supported by database entries (caution when reviewing - NSFW) unreliable sources. Doing a BEFORE was complicated by the existence of a number of famous people of this name, but I didn't find any reliable, independent sources giving significant coverage. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pennsylvania. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All references used in this article are reliable (or at-least have at one point been considered reliable) it firstly uses an article from AVN themselves and the remainder are from the same website used in the Manuel Ferrara page (the internet adult film database) (LaVOZSA)

Per this discussion at RSN, it seems pretty clear that the community does not consider IADB to be reliable - certainly not for a BLP. Mentions in databases don't really amount to significant coverage for the purposes of establishing notability, even if it were reliable. Celebsagewiki.com definitely does not sound like a reliable source for use on a BLP. So we are left with AVN publishing a press release about themselves giving an award to someone, which is not independent of the event. In other words - no sources that are independent, reliable, and give the subject significant depth of coverage. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 15:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources so that WP:GNG is not passed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. BD2412 T 06:29, 26 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 WP:SNOW delete. The snow has fallen here. BD2412 T 06:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jubbar Ali[edit]

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

Unsuccessful political candidate, notable only as an unsuccessful political candidate. Mccapra (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Assam. Mccapra (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject is an unsuccessful third-party candidate in a provincial assembly by-election. ‪雞蛋仔 eggwaffles (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply running for office does not make one notable. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Clearly non-notable. Miner Editor (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Charsaddian (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shabjul should it be helpful to future !voters when actioned. Star Mississippi 20:15, 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Zarzour[edit]

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

Promotional BLP with inadequate sourcing, moved to draft for improvement but moved back into mainspace without improvement. I don’t think the subject is notable. Mccapra (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Health and fitness, and United Arab Emirates. Mccapra (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage other than corporate press releases and news articles about the company. ‪雞蛋仔 eggwaffles (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:35, 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 redirect to SV40. Per WP:ATD. Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simian virus 40 late polyadenylation signal (SVLPA)[edit]

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

WP:NOTDATABASE - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

WP:NOTTEXTBOOK - Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal Hongsy (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Biology. Hongsy (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SV40. Definitely no extra article needed for one RNA element. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totally doesn't pass WP:GNG. Delete. Hongsy (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 16:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and as lacking secondary sources. Kathlene Smoot (talk) 01:44, 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 keep. Joyous! | Talk 16:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paska (singer)[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Finland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As I noted on the article talk page before this AfD, there's plenty of Finnish language newspaper coverage about the artist, that I believe establish very well that the subject passes WP:GNG:

Mattila, Ilkka (24 January 2014). "Paskalistan Ari Peltonen: "Toivoisin, että naiset olisivat aktiivisempia minua kohtaan". HS Nyt (in Finnish).
Typpö, Juho (5 May 2014). "Suomen paskin bändi -kisan finalistit valittu: "Mielenterveys oli kovilla"". HS Nyt (in Finnish).
"Palkittu kanava". Helsingin Sanomat (in Finnish). 25 April 2013.
Oinaala, Sampsa (5 April 2015). "Puoli vuosisataa yhtä huutoa – Ari Peltoselle radiojuontaminen on kuin urheilusuoritus". Helsingin Sanomat (in Finnish).
Juuti, Mikko (28 August 2021). ""Nää on mun maita!"". Iltasanomat (in Finnish).
Lindfors, Jukka (10 October 2014). "Vihatut levyt – rakkaita inhokkeja". Yle (in Finnish).
Lindfors, Jukka (7 April 2010). "Ari Peltosen Anssi oli Radiomafian kovaäänisintä antia". Yle (in Finnish).

The paywalled Helsingin Sanomat articles include fairly extensive bios. There are further sources about the one-man-band/artist in the two associated fi.wp articles: fi:Paska (artisti) and fi:Ari Peltonen, including at least one further Helsingin Sanomat piece from 2006, an article in the Ruotuväki magazine, another in NY Press, reviews at noise.fi and desibeli, and a book titled Jee jee jee. Suomalaisen rockin historia by Seppo Bruun, Jukka Lindfors, Santtu Luoto and Markku Salo. Notably, these are the sources that are found easily without delving into the newspaper archives from the 90s, which presumably contain further non-trivial coverage about how his show caused two interpellations in the Finnish parliament.

Moving the article Ari Peltonen might not be a bad move (based on the sourcing, he appears to have garnered more coverage as a radio personality rather than as an artist), but that's outside the purview of an AfD.

Revirvlkodlaku, as the nominator, could you give a brief outline of why you believe these sources are insufficient to establish notability? Simply asserting Lack of notability without even stating what you believe the relevant notability guideline(s) to be is not very helpful. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look at the National Library of Finland's newspaper archives. Online access to papers from 1950s to present requires a researcher account, hence no links below, but ask and I'll give a brief rundown. Searching is complicated by there being a newspaper photographer of the same name, which causes a ton of false positives in the search results, and the subject's real name being mentioned in a billion radio programme guides. Anyway, here's some hits I found about the subject from a casual browse: A full-page story in Etelä-Suomen Sanomat on 2004-10-01. Same(?) story also in Länsi-Savo on the same day. A full spread in Ruotuväki story on 2005-07-05. A two-thirds-page in Jakobstads Tidning on 2008-02-29. A page-minus-a-column in Etelä-Suomen Sanomat on 2008-03-20. Two-thirds-page in Etelä-Suomen Sanomat on 2006-07-27. Short'ish (a few paras) book review in Etelä-Suomen Sanomat on 1993-09-26. Multiple paras in Länsi-Savo on 1994-08-15. There's probably more to be found (especially if I fiddled with the search terms), but I'd imagine that's plenty to get the discussion rolling. Ljleppan (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Ljleppan. /Julle (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources significant coverage identified in this discussion that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:42, 25 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. Joyous! | Talk 15:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett University[edit]

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

Private university with nothing approaching N:ORG level of coverage. Note, besides the usual Times of India concerns, they are the founder of this university, so the coverage therein is also not independent. Star Mississippi 15:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and India. Star Mississippi 15:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Degree issuing University recognized by the University Grants Commission (India).It has tie up with the University of Birmingham.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pharaoh of the Wizards. Founded by state legislation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Size should be reduced or references added. User4edits (talk) 14:03, 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. Joyous! | Talk 15:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Brigade School[edit]

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

No indication this group of private schools is notable. Sourcing is limited to press releases about the parent group and their work, and non reliable directories. Nothing even approaching N:ORG requirements. Star Mississippi 15:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and India. Star Mississippi 15:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Fails WP:CORP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent sources; BEFORE shows nothing better. Could be speedy deleted as PROMO. 174.212.227.179 (talk) 02:16, 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 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LightwaveRF[edit]

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

I originally started this article, however I now do not believe the depth of coverage here constitutes a "level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements" as required to meet WP:CORP. Uhooep (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 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 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. Joyous! | Talk 15:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tenussian Vaccuvasco[edit]

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

No independently verifiable references, no search results for any claims made (i.e. winning three awards in 2000), no sources that Ravi Shankar was involved with this. Kazamzam (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 12:17, 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 15:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indian property bubble[edit]

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

PRODded twice, with the second rationale reading:

A completely speculative article predicting a collapse based on cherrypicked sources from over the years and equating a price decline to a bubble. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTH.
— User:2405:201:d002:31a1:b8da:f290:3597:3ba7

The first rationale was:

Article lacks timeline and its references date from 2005 to 2019 - does not meet definition of bubble
— User:Vnomad

There was (and still is) a timeline in the article, but most of the sources that are still accessible do not mention a property bubble or even a collapse in Indian real estate prices, and are instead about random events that "look like" speculation about a property bubble. One source from 2013 discusses a "marginal" decrease — never exceedind 6% on a quarterly basis — in real estate prices in 22 cities in India, whereas there was an increase in 4 others. There is an outdated statement about a predicted collapse in "the next three months" sourced to a 2015 article and another article from 2017. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Economics, and India. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prob delete - this one is quite tricky because there are clearly a lot of articles in the Indian media talking about a property bubble over several decades. The issue (for me) is that it appears most/all of these were subsequently shown to be speculation (or an oversimplification or both). So I guess one could have a well sourced neutral page saying that the media and certain economists have predicted that "the property market is a bubble.." a lot of times, but honestly I'm not sure how useful that would be. Policy-wise, I think there are likely enough RS to meet the GNG (in terms of the topic of an Indian housing bubble) practically speaking it is going to be very difficult to actually write it without sounding like a bad university essay. JMWt (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 10:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with JMWt. Probably delete. Of course there are sources. Newspapers and economists are forever speculating about the future perils of the property market. You could write an article saying almost anything about almost any country's property market in almost any decade, and find sources to support it. But describing future speculative fears that are now past, in a balanced and meaningful way is extremely difficult. The symptom is that the current article reads like an original research essay, and cherry-picks random events that don't seem so big in retrospect, e.g. "In July 2015, LIC Housing Finance put up the Orbit Residency Park project of Orbit Corporation, in Andheri, Mumbai, for auction. It had a reserve price of ₹1.25 billion (US$16 million)." (In a country the size of India, a US$16 million thing isn't going to topple governments, or even make much of a lasting ripple). If the subject is deemed notable, the article needs some serious work (or starting over). We can't have an article that reads like a single editor's political viewpoint. Elemimele (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There might concievably be an article here, but the fastest way to find it would be to nuke this one and start again. Kathlene Smoot (talk) 01:53, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spin (Maltese band)[edit]

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

WP:BAND does not work at all, an unremarkable band, from a country where metal is not common at all. There are no sources and references. Crystallizedh, 14:00, (Talk) — Preceding undated comment added 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was not properly transcluded to the log until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 10:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC. Charsaddian (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Charsaddian,

You've been editing for 10 days. How did you find this AFD and learn about NMUSIC? Just curious. You seem to be a fast learner and are only editing deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG lacks indepth sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:13, 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 keep. While there are acknowledged issues with this article, there is a clear consensus to Keep this article and improvements have been made to the article during its nomination period. I realize that it might make a reappearance at a future AFD, but please do not renominate it tomorrow or next week or next month or we will just be closing it with the same result. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of CBBC presenters[edit]

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

This list of living people has been unsourced since it was created. When sources are provided, they're to Instagram and other primary and unreliable sources. Lists like these have been swept out of their 'parent' articles, albeit with people complaining that they can can source the list by asking the presenters on Twitter(!), but nobody has ever been able to provide an actual source for the lists. Instead this list is just a weird mix of what people believe to be true, what people would like to be true and whatever vandals would like to insert whenever they feel like.

WP:LISTPEOPLE is clear: Because the subject of many lists is broad, a person is typically included in a list of people only if both of the following requirements are met:

The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.

This list contains people who have no article and no claim to notability beyond perhaps (there's no way of knowing, the list is unsourced and apparently unsourceable) having briefly presented at some point; and it fails the second point hard. — Trey Maturin™ 19:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment This can be sourced, but it must be done so carefully as the top G-hits are Fandom wiki junk, WP:DAILYMAIL gossip garbage and Buzzfeed listicles. This BBC source is likely acceptable, along with this Guardian profile. Nate • (chatter) 20:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC source is not comprehensive and does not give dates; the Guardian source is about the lovely George Webster and doesn't mention any other presenters. I'd be happy if this list were cut down to Phillip Schofield, Andi Peters, Zoe Ball, Andy Crane, Michael Underwood and George Webster, without dates, since they can be sourced... but then that seems to be too small to qualify for a Wikipedia list anyway. And perhaps the entire list can be sourced, but sadly after a couple of years of requesting that this was done, the best anyone could offer in the parent articles was quoting someone with an unverified Twitter account agreeing that they had, at some point, been a presenter on children's TV. Thin stuff. — Trey Maturin™ 21:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we don't want to source to Twitter harassment of a former presenter (which wouldn't be accepted anyways) or WP:YOUTUBE, but I also don't want what I mentioned above before the BBC source to be acceptable sources, either. It was more giving a starting point than a 'final absolute source' to help anyone along on this AfD than anything and hopefully we can get things filled in, but as with all kidvid articles we're going to get more junk sources than not. Nate • (chatter) 21:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As said this can easily be better sourced and which is the main issue with the article but given that CBBC presenters were generally included, especially in the earlier years, there is no need to delete this useful addition to the main subject. And I shall now include some additional references to further remove the need for this article's deletion.Rillington (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chucking in a couple of (primary) sources and then walking away is all well and good, but 90% of the living people on this list remain unsourced, and a good half of them don’t qualify for a Wikipedia list anyway. — Trey Maturin™ 02:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't walked away as I have now added further references, and I appreciated that you noted that the references I added the other day were from primary sources. Rillington (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list was already tagged appropriately. A couple of Instagram references fall under WP:SOFIXIT. I just did. gidonb (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You removed one poor reference but didn’t replace it with anything, thus leaving an almost entirely unreferenced list of living people with even fewer sources than it started with, so, um, well done, I guess? — Trey Maturin™ 02:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I cleaned up references that you used to talk the list down. Now you wish to use the cleanup ALSO against the list? You seem to imply in the intro and now again that Wikipedia articles have expiration dates. They don't! Also, please stop arguing under LITERALLY everyone's opinion! You have had your say in the intro, now please give others some SPACE to consider your stated concern, what is in the article, references, policies, guidelines, and more. Don't worry -- something will roll out of this AfD! gidonb (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is a discussion, not a vote. We are having a discussion here. Your suggestion that I should shut up because I don’t agree with you is inappropriate in the extreme. — Trey Maturin™ 02:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is a discussion and no single user should be all over this discussion. See WP:BLUDGEON for more details. My comment is constructive -- so you will do better next time! gidonb (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Trey is right to be concerned; you removed a reference, only to blank it. It's expected that a better-quality source should be added rather than just be removed with no replacement, and they're right to question why. This is hardly bludgeoning at all, and I do ask the same question; do you have a better source? Nate • (chatter) 19:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nate, I removed an Instagram reference that Trey correctly complained about. We do not reference our articles from social media! gidonb (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Although there seems to be a consensus to Keep this article, the nominator brings up some valid concerns with this article. While it has been improved over the course of the past week, I want to allow for more discussion on its future. I realize this decision might be questioned but know that a uninvolved admin or editor can close this discussion at any time. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem strange that you have taken the decision to relist this article liable for deletion despite the acknowledged consensus for its retention. The main reason for deleting it - lack on independent references - has been addressed by myself and this has now seen the addition of 11 independent references and since you have relisted it for deletion I've added even more. This has to be more than enough to ensure its retention. Rillington (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Liz, while the concerns are valid, as you say, they do fall under WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:SOFIXIT. Also, some were fixed, others are covered by the warning template that correctly no one removed. Typically we only discuss such concerns while there are valid concerns about the validity of article. While we're at it and since an AfD is a discussion. Otherwise such discussions belong to the article's talk page. gidonb (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don’t bludgeon this discussion, gidonb, by replying to everybody. — Trey Maturin™ 18:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. I responded to just one person and to whoever reacted under my own opinion. How does the same add up on your end? gidonb (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

28 references and an already acknowledged consensus to keep. I genuinely have no idea why this article is still being considered for deletion. Rillington (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every name needs referencing. Many still don’t. Every date needs referencing. None have them. Every assertion about what role people had (holiday relief, that they moved from/to a different channel etc) needs referencing. None do. I get that people are doing the bare minimum to try to save this article, but that’s what it is: the absolute bare minimum. It needs more, if only because if it survives this AfD every unsourced assertion will have to be removed and the article will find itself back here for not meeting WP:LISTPEOPLE. — Trey Maturin™ 12:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fully accept that you want this to be deleted and no matter what effort is put in to address your concern about lack of references, you, alone, remain set in this view. Wouldn't it be more constructive to try to improve the article and maybe to locate further references? The consensus is to keep this article and this discussion should have been closed some time ago. Rillington (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have misunderstand my motives. I don't want, per se, this article to be deleted. I do want it to be compliant with Wikipedia's most basic of all policies: verifiability. That can happen by all of its assertions being given reliable sources – again, the minimum requirement of an article in an encyclopaedia – or it can happen by the article no longer existing. There isn't a third option and the people saying the article should be kept are all giving reasons for keeping it that are outside of our basic policies.

If this article is important enough to be kept, it's important enough for people to add sources for every assertion made about the living people it talks about. If it's not important enough to to add those sources to, then why should it be kept? That's the essence of the debate here. "I like it" is not a reason to keep a mostly unreferenced list of living people. — Trey Maturin™ 12:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nearly all the names on the list have their own Wikipedia article, which is enough to justify having a list in order to help readers find them, even without sourcing. Look at it from the reader's perspective: They want to know more about that CBBC presenter, "you know, the one who appeared around the time of Zoe Ball, and had blonde hair"; they can't remember the name, so they want a list of names they can scan through, to see if any look familiar, and to find the articles. Why on earth would we deprive them of this useful list? Elemimele (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because this isn’t someone’s blog, this is an encyclopaedia, one that requires — not requests, not would-quite-like — that things in it are sourced. And if those things are about living people we doubly, triply, quadruply require them to be sourced because living people are actual living people and we shouldn’t be printing stuff about actual living breathing human beings with feelings and careers and lives without having proof for those things.

Put it this way: as the article currently stands, I could put Pol Pot as a CBBC presenter and, without sources, it would be up to other editors to prove that he wasn’t. Whilst his name was on the list, the people who were working with him would be standing accused of working with a mass murderer. No good could come of this

This is an exaggeration, but there are other more plausible names I could add, like Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile. Or random celebrities like, um, Ian H Watkins and Rylan. Or random randoms, like Jackie Fairborough and Paul Atkins (my next door neighbours. Or are they? We don’t know: my statement is unsourced).

Of what use to random readers just wanting information would it be if the list contained unsourced names like Rolf Harris, Ian H Watkins, Michael Absalom or Jackie Fairborough? That reader would be worse off than before they read the article. — Trey Maturin™ 22:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding referencing of lists. It is possible to have a list of living people in Wikipedia that has no referencing whatsover because it's not an article, it's a navigational aid. It is a way for people to find referenced articles. You can't put Pol Pot in the list of CBBC presenters because anyone clicking on the link will merely end up at the article on Pol Pot which will explain what he is, and it won't support his presence in this list. Lists are supported by the articles to which they navigate. Some lists grow beyond this, and become information-containing articles, and these need references. Think of it this way: you don't need referencing in the lead of an article because the lead is supported by the rest of the article (which is referenced), and lists are similar. I couldn't object to the removal of all presenters who don't have their own articles, if you're worried about that aspect. But I don't think it would be very helpful. Elemimele (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And here we come to the crux: this isn't just a list of people. It's a list of people that gives other information like the dates they're supposed to have presented (unreferenced) and also what roles they had (some of which are followed by question marks because even the people adding them don't know the facts). Of those that are linked, several connect to articles that don't mention the person's alleged role at CBBC/CBeebies, or do but that isn't referenced either.

If this debate is closed as keep, the list will need to drop the dates and the roles and the people without articles and the people whose articles don't mention their roles and the people whose articles do but aren't referenced there either.

The resulting list will be of no functional use to anybody and won't meet WP:LISTPEOPLE, so it'll end up back here.

The alternative is to source this list of living people with reliable sources – the most basic tenet of Wikipedia. But people don't want to do that. They won't do that. They chuck in a few links to BBC Genome that barely count, but don't, won't, or can't, reference the entries on it and act like this is really asking too much. It really isn't; and our entire encyclopaedia is built upon this notion. — Trey Maturin™ 17:20, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Thomson[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; all the online coverage is routine/trivial stuff like match reports and signing announcements, except for this which isn't nearly enough to be significant coverage. Jogurney (talk) 16:19, 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. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy and influence of Mad Max in popular culture[edit]

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

Article is esentially just a list of popculture references. Any actually noteworthy influences or parodies can be discussed on the main franchise article. ★Trekker (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC) Possibly worth mentioning that the article was created with the comment "Hopefully this will clear the main articles of this rubbish".★Trekker (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Popular culture. ★Trekker (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Mad Max. (If kept, shorten the title: don't need both "legacy" and "influence".) I've gotten rid of the trashier bits and added a reference or two and Dunkirk (of all things). There are several solid sources attesting to the franchise's longlasting influence. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. I was ready to !vote otherwise, but upon reviewing the text and sources, I think it is in fact notable. I would not oppose a move to another, shorter title. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Commment This is bad. The title is bad. The format is bad. The sourcing is bad. The writing is bad. It looks more like something written for TV Tropes than Wikipedia. Notable or not, this certainly isn't the way to cover this topic. TompaDompa (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hold it in. Tell us what you really think. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Yeah I think at the very best some few things from here could be merged to the main franchise article or split into the different film articles.★Trekker (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Regarding a possible Merge, it's worth reading the nominator's second comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a giant economy-sized version of the "X in pop culture" bullet-point list that sprouts at the end of every major entertainment-related article and grows beyond control. Joyous! | Talk 00:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. May I remind the delete lvoters that Afd is not for cleanup. The topic is clearly notable, as shown by the three sources in the intro. Also "Mad Max’s enduring pop culture power" (Australian Centre for the Moving Image), "8 Reasons Why Mad Max Is the Most Improbable Franchise of All Time" (Vanity Fair, "the legacy of Mad Max stretches all the way back to the original 1979 film, which kicked off an improbable franchise with an even bigger mark on pop culture than you might think. ... famed filmmakers from David Fincher to Guillermo del Toro to James Cameron all cite the enormous influence of Max Rockatansky and his creator-director George Miller."), "Mad Max (1979): Curator's notes" (National Film and Sound Archive, "The influence of Mad Max would be hard to overstate. Some would say it is the most influential movie ever made in Australia. The film had a profound effect on filmmakers and audiences around the world.") Clarityfiend (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like something you could summarize in a few sentences in the main article(s) without creating a spinoff article. TompaDompa (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated initially, merge is an option. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:37, 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. The "delete" opinions are more persuasive. They note that while the peculiar pronouncements of Donald Trump certainly have received ample coverage, the difference between this article and Bushism and Bidenisms is that the latter consist of encyclopedic discussion of these presidents' linguistic foibles, whereas the present article is merely a collection of quotations, which fails WP:NOT. This argument is not substantively addressed by the "keep" side. This outcome does not preclude a recreation of this article in an encyclopedic form. Sandstein 08:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpisms[edit]

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

I'm no fan of Donald Trump, let's be clear about this. But this page is a mish-mash of Trump quotes that are supposed to make him look bad. The lead calls them "unconventional statements" that "may be regarded as unusual" but that's way too vague and subjective to form a list. (The lead also says that "Trumpism" is a play on the word "euphemism" which it clearly is not). In the end, it's OR meant to disparage Trump. Let's take a few examples that show why the list is problematic.

(Referring to North Korea) “I believe it’s a rough situation over there. There’s no question about it.” Seems like a pretty innocuous statement. People may disagree with this evaluation but it's not a wild statement, especially taken out of context.
“Well, I haven’t actually left the White House in months.” Context is everything here. It's probably not literally true but it may be referring to a period where he was busier than usual at the White House.
“Remember two things. Number one, I said, we’re going to be saying Christmas again. And, number two, I said I was going to give you a Christmas present.” Silly war on Christmas statement but that's completely par for the course in conservative circles.
“The world is not doing well and we’re going great.” Out of context, this is a routine MAGA statement that many Americans would agree with. Pichpich (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Pichpich (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I very nearly voted keep, but a Google search mostly finds results pertaining to the similarly-named topic of Trumpism, and anything relevant to this article is not sufficient quality for a BLP. We already have a list of nicknames used by Donald Trump which are much easier to define and better covered than these "Trumpisms". This article seems to mostly be WP:SYNTH attempting to make the subject look more notable than it is. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Leaning keep per below. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although the list should be reduced specific phrases that are listed, mentioned, or analyzed in reliable sources (e.g. [1]), and in general the article should provide a summary of what reliable sources have reported on the topic rather than just listing examples. In a quick search, it seems there's plenty of aspects that could be covered: the assertion that Trump gets away with statements that would end other political careers, cultural influence, responses from his children, sentiment analysis -- those are just the examples from the first couple of pages of Google News. There's a book. And sure, WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I think it's worth mentioning we have Bushism and Bidenisms, so it's not like an article of this sort is... unpresidented. Jfire (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jfire's persuasive argument above, complete with citations that easily satisfy WP:SIGCOV. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete because Wikipedia is not Wikiquote or Wiktionary. However, someone is willing to volunteer to rework the article to be similar to Bushism to talk about reliable reporting on the phenomenon rather than being a naked list of quotes, then would support keeping. Lizthegrey (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keepfefe. There are so many articles about Trump's egregious mouth vomits, e.g. Tatler, CNN (just from a single interview), British GQ, CBS, and I haven't (afaik) duplicated any of Jfire's sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you call them "egregious mouth vomits" then you're not approaching this article with the right frame of mind. Again, I'll never be mistaken for a Trump fan and I've chuckled many times reading idiotic quotes from him but we have a NPOV to maintain here. You're basically validating the fact that this is essentially an attack page. Pichpich (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided sterling sources. The spillover contempt doesn't change that. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is dictionary definition for a slang term and a list of some unusual things that he's said with references included. Whether something he's said is "unusual" is entirely subjective and up to the writer of the news articles and the Wikipedia page to make the decision. There most definitely should be a Wiktionary page for this, and this namespace should exist as a soft redirect to it, but this seems inappropriate to have as an article and goes against WP:NOTDIC. The articles for the other presidents should be deleted in the same manner too, in my opinion. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1) these are quotes, and the term "trumpism" may have been used somewhere but it is a made-up term that is not commonly used 2) there are sites for quotes, this is not one 3) there are sites for making fun of Trump, this is not one 4) any selection of quotes would be non-encyclopedic 5) quotes out of context are ripe for misinterpretation, which an encyclopedia should not promote 6) any public figure has made hundreds or thousands of statements and we wouldn't try to fit them all into Wikipedia - how about all of the strange things said by Tucker Carlson or Dan Quayle or G H Bush? Margery Taylor Green or Lauren Boebert? Or the tweets of Elon Musk? Lamona (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oooof! I just learned that we have Bushisms and Bidenisms. I'm still not getting behind this article. I think it's enough to cover this in the Donald Trump article, regardless of the precedent for Bush and Biden - WP:OTHERSTUFF. And I don't think that a long list of quotes is encyclopedic. A few quotes with due context is all that is needed, and that can fit into the article for him. That's my humble opinion. Lamona (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NETRUMP Lightburst (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Trumpisms" is a topic that has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Passes WP:NLIST as sources discuss the "trumpisms" as a group/set. To those objecting that it is a dictionary definition, see WP:WORDISSUBJECT. I would say the article does need to be updated to include information on the social and/or historical significance of the term, but there is clearly sufficient coverage to allow that. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lamona. This isn't encyclopedic. It more resembles one of those clickbaity Buzzfeed type articles and might as well be renamed List of dumb things Donald Trump has said. Like most politicians, he's made some eyebrow-raising comments through the years - he's just said a lot more than most typically do. On the surface, this looks like a hit piece written up by an opposing candidate's team with a bunch of sound bites taken out of context, which is a pretty clear violation of WP:NPOV. We don't need an index of every single dumb thing he's ever said - you can go to Buzzfeed or whatever for that. Obviously, this has gotten some coverage, but see WP:NETRUMP. News sites ran (and still run) articles about Trump constantly because it would get them clicks. Seems to me that a section in Donald Trump or maybe a merge of some type with Veracity of statements by Donald Trump or another similar article would be more appropriate. I also think Trumpism isn't an appropriate title as most of the Google search results for "trumpism" refer to his ideology rather than the comments he's made, unlike Bushism which pretty much universally refers to Bush's odd comments. Also worth noting that the Bushism article does far better as far as NPOV goes and is more than just a list of quotes, while Bidenism contains only a handful of quotes despite his reputation over the years as a gaffe machine. Highway 89 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd keep although there's a risk of it being basically an attack page. Trump is famous the world over for saying unusual and potentially silly things, and newspapers have definitely spent a lot of energy and effort in investigating and repeating each gaffe/weird-statement he's made. So it has become a notable subject in the Wikipedia sense. It will just need careful weeding to ensure it is encyclopaedia-worthy and history-proof. Elemimele (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete definitely delete. If Yogi Berra can have a page on WikiQuote, so can Trump (and of course he does), but there's no reason to excerpt a "best/worst of" here. Also, the whole notion of a "Trumpism" is, at best, vague, but more generally, made up and subjective. Mangoe (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple reliable sources defining the term and using it. How exactly is that "made up"? ––FormalDude (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any such thing. The cases I saw seemed to assume that everyone ~~who is not a Trump supporter~~ understands them to be "characteristically stupid things Trump said" but when it comes down to it, it's not specific statements: it's that Trump spews a constant stream of stupid/false/ego-maniacal utterances to the point where there's no real point in picking any particular ones out. It makes sense to have a passage on that in his biography about this, but enumeration is pointless and unbounded. Mangoe (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. What would a clear set of inclusion criteria look like? The main difference between Bushisms and Trumpisms is there are so many (so very many) words from Trump, and so many more news outlets covering him with more regularity. Bush had his famous goofy things he's said, but (a) there was no Twitter, and (b) he wasn't constantly, desperately trying to be in the spotlight by spamming provocations or thumb-mashing half-baked hot takes about what he was watching on Fox. There are just so many crazy quotes that I'm not sure how an encyclopedic list could properly filter them without relying on listicles-of-the-moment. If someone has an idea, I'm all ears, but for now it just seems like a collection of some random subset of the hundred thousand "get a load of what he said now!" bits. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While he's politically active this is going to be an un-encyclopedic cesspit. Or are we allowed to cross-project redirect to https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Donald_Trump ? DeathStarArchitect (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be rewritten move to draft. Catfurball (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this will be deleted, so it also should be deleted Bushism or even Bidenism. Also, don't forget Chernomyrdinka or even Putinisms. I think that Trumpism article can be improved. Goliv04053 (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is this even comparable to Bushism? That’s a well sourced article with clear, covered relevance. As is Chernomyrdinka which isn’t even treated as a bad thing. As this stands, it’s no more than an attack page of questionable comments Trump has said, which obviously isn’t encyclopedic or WP:NPOV. Might as well add every one of his tweets or posts on whatever social media he uses now. Highway 89 (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While not formatted as a list, this list of statements basically fails WP:NLIST as being indiscriminate. What makes Bushism or Bidenism distinct is that there is RS coverage of the subject's speaking style and the specific isms are used as examples, not a list. Is see no RS coverage that define a Trumpismm, other than a list of possible examples. The PBS article mentioned above offers this: "Lobbing rhetorical stink bombs at a large group of voters is not the normal way to get ahead in U.S. politics. Nor is alienating prominent figures of your own party. But Donald Trump has turned the do’s and don’ts of campaigns on their head, prospering with tactics that could sink anyone else." The Politico article is a "(highly subjective) list of 155 of Trump’s most controversial, most eyebrow raising, most mystifying, even amusing “Trumpisms.” So, all we have is a indiscriminate list of controversial or unconventional quotes. Could there be an article about Trump's speaking style, probably, but not in its current form (WP:TNT). --Enos733 (talk) 18:34, 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 Consolidate with Dorcopsis (genus). There is consensus that this is redundant to Dorcopsis (genus), but no clear consensus how to resolve this redundancy. I suggest that Elmidae and Plantdrew, who have each proposed methods, come to an agreement with each other on how to proceed. Sandstein 08:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dorcopsis[edit]

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

Grouping seems unnecessary. It's not a subfamily or a distinct genus, it's just a way of lumping two related genera together. Does not serve a purpose. Would delete and move the genus Dorcopsis from 'Dorcopsis (genus)' to Dorcopsis. Kazamzam (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - though it definitely needs some work. Maybe make it more formally a SIA. The species in the two genera are all called dorcopsis, so moving the genus page here would leave out the Dorcopsulus species. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect These two genera may form a clade, but so do any two taxa with a common ancestor. Unless they are being treated as a formally named clade and discussed as such, I don't see the basis for having an article for this grouping - which is honestly not exactly bulging with information, or even has the potential for any that would not be better placed at either genus. Suggest redirecting this to Dorcopsis (genus), and adding a note there that the Dorcopsulus species also have this common name. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Elmidae, not every single clade needs an article. SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move Dorcopsis (genus) to base title. This is a content fork. Both Dorcopsulus species were first described as Dorcopsis; a section on taxonomic history with former species and a hatnote in the article on the genus are sufficient to address any ambiguity. Plantdrew (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also a sensible solution - as long as we end up with two genus articles and a note/hatnote. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 22:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participation since last two relists. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 08:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While we tend to do thins by consensus here, this decision really needs to be made by biologists or who ever understands the correct grouping/ranking. CT55555(talk) 13:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The taxonomy is clear, this is a question of how to combine the different categorization systems of common name groupings and taxonomic groupings. WP mechanics only. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:56, 25 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 Future plc. Any sourceable content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 08:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MusicRadar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This (barely) survived AfD back in 2008, but it's had 15 years to improve since then and hasn't; it's still sourced entirely to itself. This wouldn't be a routine deletion—because a lot of Wikipedia articles reference it, outright deletion would leave a huge trail of redlinks—but IMO it should be redirected to Future plc. (This is a topic on which it's very hard to do a viable WP:BEFORE, as any search on it brings up a zillion Wikipedia mirrors, but I can't find any significant coverage of this specific website as opposed to coverage of content hosted on it.) ‑ Iridescent 06:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Websites. ‑ Iridescent 06:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Future plc. There is no reason any of this information should be lost in the process; taken together it will still be a rather small section of the merge target. BD2412 T 06:16, 26 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 Shudder to Think. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Wade (drummer)[edit]

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

Appears to lack independent notability. I was about ready to bold redirect to Jawbox assuming that to be his most prominent musical role, but after looking closer that isn't quite as clear as I thought. Obviously redirecting is usually preferred (assuming there isn't a keep here that I somehow missed) but I'm not sure any of the potential targets necessarily outweigh each other and so I suspect deletion might be the better option. QuietHere (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Washington, D.C.. QuietHere (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shudder to Think. That's the band that he was with the longest, and when the band was a current concern (not before or after their glory days). He even got one bit of media coverage as that band's drummer: [2]. Otherwise I can find nothing that bestows independent notability, and for his other bands he was either a brief member or joined late nostalgia lineups. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shudder to Think as there is not enough coverage and content to justify a standalone article at this stage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:39, 25 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Terrell[edit]

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

Notable only for the reason for her death, falls under WP:1E. Tube·of·Light 07:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, and United States of America. Tube·of·Light 07:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable news anchor. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although if Jax 0677 has sources to support 'notable news anchor' I will reconsider. 25 years old, anchoring the Sunday 11pm slot, which to me means 'back bencher'. I don't find notability preceding her unfortunate death. And I note that this public radio piece says 'Every year in the great Smokey Mountains another visitor's death makes the local news.' So even her death is not generally notable. Lamona (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is shown through reliable sources, and this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO when viewing it through the lens of WP:BLP1E (though not living, it applies since this is a low-profile individual with coverage only of their at the time recent death). - Aoidh (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Insufficient coverage, beyond the WP:BLP1E event of an unusual death, to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. BD2412 T 06:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deer antler blood baths [edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Deer antler blood baths

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

Allegedly an alternative health care practice in Russia. The cited news articles basically say "Putin does it" and do not adequately prove its notability as an established practice. I suggest we merge it to antler perhaps. BorgQueen (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. BorgQueen (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say merge to either Antler § Exploitation by other species or Vladimir Putin § Health or both... It seems more WP:DUE for Putin than it does for antler, but I could see the case that it is DUE in both cases, as it has had some coverage in both. But I agree that independently it doesn't have much notability. Basically no one specifically is mentioned as doing it in our sources except for Putin and vague "other people" who are never named. I can't find many sources which describe it as a popular practice outside of his cult of personality. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we really need another wacky 'health hack' only detailed by men's magazines? Nah. No actual sources outside of 'dude swears this works for him!' folktales. Nate • (chatter) 00:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if merged with the article on Putin, this practice is only allegedly linked to his healthcare routine. There is no sound proof that Putin really does it, and the whole discourse about Putin's use of deer antler blood baths is based on rumours.ThegaBolt (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Greatly stretches the concept of 'alternative medicine'. If someone wants to add this to either of the articles listed above please make sure no actual claims are treated as factual. Lamona (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete weird claim with very little supporting evidence. Joyous! | Talk 20:47, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Yakima shooting[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Not a very notable shooting with only three deaths. With the shooter also dead, there is no real possibility of the case being significantly revisited by way of something like a trial. Love of Corey (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per above. Is there perhaps a list into which this could be merged? An anonymous username, not my real name 04:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of. Love of Corey (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the motive is still being investigated, seems too soon to delete this without knowing what authorities may say on that front. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, consider WP:NTEMP per all the sources below. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per further discussion below and misapplication of WP:NOTNEWS, and my prior weak keep comments about the ongoing investigation. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete News of only local note. WP:NOTNEWS. Nate • (chatter) 18:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrSchimpf: News of only local note.
—Locke Cole • t • c 19:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wire services exist and often copy the same AP report over and over again with light differentiation between each source, as done here. Also we don't allow the Daily Mail. Also 'source dump' AfD votes without any comment are usually dismissed outright by most AfD participants, as they add nothing to the discussion other than the opposite of WP:HEY. Nate • (chatter) 20:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I've read all those articles, and in addition to completely different authors in the six I just spot checked, they also have different information and levels of detail (and very different layout/formatting). Regardless, your claim of "news of only local note" has been refuted. If you have another reason to delete, by all means state it, but don't try to !vote with something as easy to refute and as absurd as that, thanks. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's put on a national news site doesn't clinch WP:N; this needs long and sustaining coverage to remain, and as described by the nom, that will not occur as the original suspect is deceased. One surge of coverage from news organizations merely noting it and moving on does not satisfy WP:GNG for me, and I will continue to argue NOTNEWS for editors just here to alarm by clogging en.wiki with every crime with death they find just to claim article creation milestones nobody else cares about and just to be WP:POINTy. Nate • (chatter) 00:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue to argue NOTNEWS for editors just here to alarm by clogging en.wiki with every crime with death they find just to claim article creation milestones nobody else cares about and just to be WP:POINTy WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND is that way. I didn't create this article, and your !vote just to spite the people you apparently detest is noted. As to your earlier comments, WP:NTEMP is right there: notability is not temporary. You might want to give WP:GNG another read, because this article easily ticks off every single box there, and we don't delete articles on the basis of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a place for this...it's called WikiNews. It'll be just fine there, but we have this category of editors who are just here to add every miserable crime they can find to en.wiki, notable or not, just to up their numbers. And you're right; I don't like these articles, because they aren't encyclopedic and just here to push an agenda about crime being horrible and everywhere, when it isn't. I stand by my vote! and have been here eighteen years with a focus on a quality encyclopedia, not one filled with everyday crime that is only noticed in a morning news rundown and no further nationally. I will no longer respond to your scolding because there are more important things to do here than argue a local news story's notability. Nate • (chatter) 19:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of RS coverage, and people citing NOTNEWS really need to read what it actually says; it's much more applicable as an argument in support of keeping this. Jclemens (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of makes me want to write WP:NOTNOTNEWS (ala WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTBLP1E)... the whole WP:NOT gets so much abuse from people shoehorning into things it clearly isn't meant for. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shootings in the US are, alas, becoming commonplace and frequent. There's nothing special about this one. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence that this crime will have lasting impact or informational value. All of the articles cited are within a day or two of the shooting, after which it was pretty much forgotten. In fact, a search on "Yakima shooting" reveals shootings other than this one, making this one rather pedestrian. I'm sorry for the folks who are killed or wounded but honestly, there are a couple of these a day in this damned country. We can't fill WP with them, and I do not understand the interest in doing so. Lamona (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly keep. According to Stanford and Mother Jones, a mass shooting is a shooting that occurs in one place that leaves three or more people dead, not counting the perpetrator(s). Shootings associated with organized crime, gang violence, drug wars, armed robberies, or any other thing that is "conventionally motivated" don't count. If what happened in Yakima counts, then it should stay up. 2600:6C52:4C40:E77:F17D:8A6B:279B:FE3E (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Only in America, of all countries in the western world, would a murder be dismissed as a "shooting with only three deaths"! How very sad. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and basically per WP:BLP1E. This received news coverage due to its shock value, but in the scheme of things is a relatively minor event. No objection to merging to an appropriate article on mass shootings in the United States in 2023. BD2412 T 06:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hama Ali Muhammad[edit]

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

WP:NOTPROMOTION MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator, my searches found nothing to suggest notability. CT55555(talk) 19:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. When conducting your search, kindly use the name "Hama Ali Aware" that is her maiden name which has the track record of her notability. I am sure your searches are based on her marital name Hama Ali Muhammad which might not fetch the needed result. Thank you for your due diligence.

Adetokunbohs (talk) 02:09, 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 02:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belkins[edit]

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

non-notable business, with hardly any coverage in RS. Appears promotional Oaktree b (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Delaware. Shellwood (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination. Clearly fails WP:ORG. Charsaddian (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is hard to evaluate because the company appears to be active mainly in Ukraine, and based in Kyiv. I translated many of the sources here and none of them mentioned a headquarters in Delaware so I'm not sure what that is about. Of the articles I translated, many are typical business announcements, some are press releases, some interviews. There are articles that brag that the company continues to thrive in spite of the war, but those are nearly a year old - if someone reads Ukrainian or Russian it would be good to know if this business continues to exist. In terms of what kind of business it is, they say: "Belkins finds potential business customers and engages them with email marketing. It works on the American and European market and is in the first place in its niche in the clutch.co rating." That is from this. I am going with DELETE as not meeting NCORP. Lamona (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, insufficient sources that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:39, 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 02:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Alan Weinstein[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. Public speaker, coverage is trivial or mentions of where he's spoken. Non-notable as a musician or any other thing listed. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Shellwood (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTPROMO. The inclusion of the middle name Alan in the title appears to be original research, since I could not find this name in any of the trivial self-promotional references, not even on the subject's own website. StonyBrook _babble 08:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "Alan" in the title may be the sign of a beginner who is unfamiliar with disambiguation; see Michael Weinstein. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional article with no substantial independent coverage. ‪雞蛋仔 eggwaffles (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTRESUME. The author has attempted to beef up the resume with references, but most of them are to press releases or stories about companies where Mr. Weinstein worked. His products are only described as "viral" in their own online promotions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:04, 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 speedy delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Brownsell[edit]

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

Zero sources for a person, not even sure what he does. He takes showers and met a girl? Almost appears to be a vanity page. Oaktree b (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's either a joke page or an attack page. No credible clam to notability. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - as pure vandalism and WP:A7 besides. The body odour section is completely unacceptable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SomeOrdinaryGamers[edit]

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

Non-notable streamer with no coverage in RS. No sources used in the article and all I find are blog posts. Oaktree b (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't find any sources that meet the WP:GNG, let alone the WP:BLP standards. Sergecross73 msg me 02:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was CSD A7'ed several times and also moved to draft, but then moved back to mainspace, so here we are. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 03:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dratify and salt The only articles I have seen so far are in passing mentions along with other YouTubers. Needs external news sources that cover his career specifically and in depth. Until those GNG articles are provided, there is no point in keeping this in mainspace. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 03:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, and I agree with salting at this point.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and India. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 12:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and the prose doesn't seem to be worth saving. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously fails GNG. Consider salting. The article has been repeatedly deleted several times before, all to same conclusion. Silikonz💬 22:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There was another draft for him that used his real name at Draft:Mutahar, which was rejected multiple times before it got G13d. If I recall correctly, the only sources there were about an incident he was involved in which only meets WP:BLP1E. If Draftifying is an option, this draft should be restored and the contents of this page should be merged over there so AfC editors don't have to waste time reviewing multiple copies of his article, and to prevent other editors from gaming the system by making multiple drafts of him. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG lacks indepth sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A lot of the text was copied from Fandom. Text was copied from SomeOrdinaryGamers at YouTube Wiki — Diannaa (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N. Doesn't have in depth sourcing. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While this person might be considered notable on the YouTube platform, there is no news articles I could find about this person, and all infomation was from Fandom, which has been proven many times to not be a reliable source whatsoever. Candeadly (talk) 18:18, 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Isabela Cessna 206 disappearance[edit]

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

Non-notable light aircraft accident. This was a light aircraft that departed and disappeared 26 days ago, presumably crashed into the water, with six people on board, all presumed dead by now. There were no notable people on board (ie people with a biography article already on Wikipedia) and there is no indication that this was anything other than just another routine, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL light aircraft accident, one of thousands of similar accidents that happen globally each year. There is no indication of any WP:LASTING effects, no likelihood of any fleet grounding, airworthiness directives, changes to ATC or SAR procedures, or anything else. Just to preemptively address editors who will claim that it is "rare or unusual" because the aircraft has not been found - this is also quite common. Globally tens of thousands of light aircraft have crashed over time and not yet been found. Some will be found in time, many never will, but this does not confer any sort of notability by itself. Fundamentally this article this is just a simple newspaper story and falls afoul of our Wikipedia policy WP:NOTNEWS, which says Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Ahunt (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✔️ support deletion, as Adam explained.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. tedder (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the plane has since been found with WP:ROUTINE coverage (also per nom). [3] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: LOL, that is the wrong aircraft. That was a Cessna 340 that crashed 18 February 2023 and was also missing until yesterday! They seem to lose a lot of airplanes there. - Ahunt (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is primarily WP:ROUTINE, not really passing the threshold of SIGCOV. Even if it were, there are still WP:TOOSOON issues as well. Shawn Teller (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:ROUTINE. Not enough impact to warrant an article. SBKSPP (talk) 08:57, 25 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three Way, Arizona[edit]

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

Yet another searching hell, though I did find two different guidebooks referring to it as "a place on the map, not a town". Moving on to the maps and aerials, though, there is a store and a drive-in theater and nothing else. Maps and topos only go back to the fifties, and these are all that are there on the oldest pictures and editions, though of late there is a sprinkling of other business and the like. I can find no evidence for a town, however, at any age. Mangoe (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete funny and vaguely suggestive name, but not notable. Pictures of the place show a gas station and general store in the middle of nowhere. Definitely not a community. Dronebogus (talk) 13:46, 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Index[edit]

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

The references here are mostly very poor. Many of them are primary sources or regulatory filings and license approvals related to the company. I do not believe the depth of coverage constitutes a "level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements" as required to meet WP:CORP. Uhooep (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Cyprus, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant independent coverage aside from press releases. Written in a promotional tone. ‪雞蛋仔 eggwaffles (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Head[edit]

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

Fails notability J2m5 (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little impact of citations yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not even on the average level of non-notable academic, but far below. Could have been a speedy delete. Jeppiz (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable academic, as a perennial failed candidate he isn't notable either. --Mvqr (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:PROF and WP:NPOL as failed candidate. LibStar (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to have received any coverage outside of websites operated by the Socialist Equality Party, of which he is a member and frequent candidate. Fails WP:GNG, and as he has stood in multiple elections there is no redirect target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real WP:SIGCOV, so the the natural conclusion is that WP:GNG isn’t satisfied. I could see this being a worthwhile article if the subject was notable. Shawn Teller (talk) 04:51, 25 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.