Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 18 May 20 >

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. Closing this early. Consensus is clear. User Mr. Ed... indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Series of events that led to the separation of New Spain and the rest of Hispanic America, as well as Brazil, from Spain and Portugal[edit]

Series of events that led to the separation of New Spain and the rest of Hispanic America, as well as Brazil, from Spain and Portugal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bizarre essay that duplicates material we already have well covered at Spanish American wars of independence and Independence of Brazil. Mccapra (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Portugal, Spain, and South America. Mccapra (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Mccapra. This is not a "Bizzare essay" nor does it duplicate material already covered at the Spanish wars of independence. You can certainly find that the point of this Article is precisely what the title points to, meaning it gives the user who read it a complete run down of the sequences of events that led to the separation. The article you mentioned, doesn't cover a lot of the things covered here, and focuses particularly on the war it self. If you have any doubt about it, try to ctrl+f every single data shown, explained, and sourced in this article to see if you find them all covered in the article you mentioned, which by the way, although it gives a background, it focuses heavily on what it title indicates, which is the wars of independence themselves, not the point this article I'm making focuses on, which are the broader sequences of events that led to the separation. What this is, is an article that has just been created, therefore, as indicated in the history of it, it requires polishing, and will constantly be updated, given the fact it's a new article in which I'm working on. Thank you for your time. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Very essay-like, effectively the same content from other articles, and filled with "See Article X", which are all just longer forms of what was mentioned. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 00:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please execute the same exercise that I mentioned to the user above (ctrl+f) every single thing this article features, and do a simple comparison based on the results, which I can assures you, won't be the same. Have a good one. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, delete per nom. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Provide one article that explains (and provide proof, of course, or showcase, that such linked article explains and accomplishes the objective the title of this article enunciates, which of course, would need to have the majority of things mentioned here more than 90% of them, and explained and sourced correctly within each other), and sources the same things as this one, or that executes the same objective as this one, which is the complete rundown of key events that led to the separation, and I will delete it my self, since if an article accomplished the same purpose as the this one, then there's no need to create another one. Also, just for the record, keep it mind it's a WIP (Work In Progress) which requires polishing. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. It is not clear to me that this article has a good reason to exist, as it mostly summarizes content we already have, and the title is extremely verbose, nearly to the point of satire. I am unable to understand what the article's creator is saying in this discussion. Perhaps instead of "delete" I should say I recommend that the closer of this discussion regardless of whoever they may be to make all possible haste in re deletory actions videlicet the enactment of a resolute and concrete and entirely possibly unanimous consensus to delete as erstwhile reached by the participants of this selfsame aforementioned discussion a priori mutatis mutandis quantum ergo sum propter quod et faciendum. jp×g 03:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can't understand what I'm saying, then the only thing to say is that that's sad. As much as it's sad you can't see why this article should exist.
    Put in basic words, for basic beings: You need to provide with an article, almost 90% like this one, with as much info and the same sources as this one (if it's not clear, I need to rephrase, and given your answer, I'm sure it's required), to at least sustain the reason for the deletion. You guys are giving Wikipedia an amazing reputation. I'm also sorry if you couldn't get the sarcasm in that last bit there. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am indeed a basic being, so I may need you to explain to me in some more detail which policy or guideline your "90% like this one" is based on; I have participated in a few hundred deletion discussions and I have never heard of this. jp×g 19:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from the answer above your comment: "Provide one article that explains (and provide proof, of course, or showcase, that such linked article explains and accomplishes the objective the title of this article enunciates, which of course, would need to have the majority of things mentioned here." That would show me this article is redundant and should be deleted. The quoted "Spanish American Wars of independence" by many here, doesn't have the information this article provides, when I say 90% it obviously means at least 90% of the things you see in this one, should be there, so that it tells me: "Oh no, this article is redundant, and should be deleted". And then, I will delete, because there's no point in creating an article that provides information for a particular title/purpose, that another article already has. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Incoherent and ungrammatical and seems to have no argument as to why the events (loosely!) covered lead to rather than merely precede the loss of the Spanish colonies. Anything which could fall within the scope of this article could be part of the context section of Spanish American wars of independence; a separate article risks a content fork.TheLongTone (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Talks about a "horrible mess" and being "ungrammatical" yet, writes: "Incoherent and ungrammatical and seems to". And if you believe there's no argument, or have any doubts as to why they lead there, maybe you should reconsider participating in something such as editing Wikipedia, that requires something called "Comprehension". I hope you manage to read well, and have a good one. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom, weirdly long title notwithstanding, this is just an essay which cites other articles.WP:ESSAY is in effect here. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't understand the selection criteria for this article. One of the most prominently featured events in this article is the Voyage of the Glorioso, which consisted of British attacks on a Spanish ship in the Azores and off the coasts of Spain and Portugal, in 1747, during a war between Spain and Great Britain. What that has to do with the independence of the Spanish American colonies from Spain, which took place more than 50 years later, remains unclear to me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, we already have Spanish American wars of independence, and the independence of Brazil doesn't really seem related. Not really a rationale for deletion, but also that title is just straight out of xkcd. AryKun (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. Spanish American Wars of independence doesn't get close (not even 70%. Have doubts? Go ahead, copy and paste almost all info you see here exactly from there, fulfilling the objective that the title of this article enunciates, and automatically telling me, with something called proof, that I should delete, which, as much as your peers in this page, you haven't noticed this has already been addressed, and currently, no answer has been given, because there's no way they can copy and paste the same thing, simply because the constantly quoted article "Spanish American Wars of independence" doesn't have it, nor does any other article like this one exists, so that they could take it from there) to the the information you see here, so, to date, this article is not redundant.
    • 2. Brazil's independence is obviously related, have you even read the title of the article? How do you expect it to not be related when one of the objectives of the title is literally Brazil's independence? You are clearly looking at something else in your head.
    • 3. Brazil's independence is a direct effect, and interconnected in consequence with the whole thing, maybe if you read the paragraph where it's mentioned you would be able to see that.
    • 4. I don't even think you can suggest a better name, mainly because you clearly didn't even read the article, not even the tile.
    Have a good one. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Will you stop bludgeoning people with the same walls of text, all of which are poorly reasoned? Of course the Spanish American wars of independence doesn't cover everything in this article; you've added random wars from the 1500s, 1600s, and 1700s here (including the start of Spanish colonization, which leads to the end of Spanish colonization how?). As for Brazil, you know that it isn't related, since you mention it once (in the form of a naval commander) throughout the article. This article is a badly written timeline of the history of Spanish America; in essence, you've made a worse History of Latin America. AryKun (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you stop copy pasting the same poorly reasoned text as your peers?
    • It's not my problem that your lack of reading comprehension is an issue that directly affects how you understand what you read.
    • The history of Spanish America is not remotely close to what this article points to, this article points towards what it's title enunciates, and the history of Spanish America is an entirely different thing, which your basic understanding doesn't manage to get.
    • At this point it's clear you don't read at all, nor comprehend minimal things, since you keep insisting Brazil's independence isn't related when it's literally one of the points the title of this article points to, of course it needs to be addressed, as well as it's relationship with everything else, (what thing are you thinking about instead of this article's title?) I mentioned Brazil the times it needs to be mentioned, not once as you claim. Please, make yourself a favor, and learn to read correctly, although given your responses it won't happen since it's clearly also a comprehension issue, so I'm no sure you'll even manage to get this, that I just typed.
    • The start of Spanish colonization? I mentioned New Spain, which is not the start, nor is Pedro. They are both mentioned as it's necessary to start the article enunciating the places the title directly refers to, Pedro is there to globalize the concept of any other place other than New Spain in the Americas, I was not going to say "The viceroyalty of this, then this, then that, was created, in this, and that". Please go and inform yourself prior to typing such ridicule texts. At least this whole thing gives me an idea of which Wikipedia users are not even fit to comprehend what they read.
    Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I won't be replying to your comment here if it says the same as the ones above, which has already been addressed over, and over again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk • contribs) 02:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The same content can just be (and have already been) covered in other articles concerning the Americas around this time period. The choice of writing about New Spain's AND Brazil's separation from other Spanish colonies seem very odd, since they happened for different reasons and the article did not make much correlation to justify why they're discussed together. As an article, it's pretty redundant. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to address the things from this comment that aren't addressed in the one/s above you.
    • "choice of writing about New Spain's AND Brazil's separation from other Spanish colonies seem very odd" it's not odd, because they did happen for the same reason, and that's why this article specifies as soon as you start reading it that it's a series of key linked events that led to the separation. I recommend re-reading if you can't see what links them.
    Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Because the article is not what its title says. It implies that it is about the wars of independence, but it is actually Foreign attacks on New Spain and Brazil and it does not even do that well, as it says little about the Dutch West India Company's attempts to take over Brazil during the Dutch Eighty Years War. It is just a bad WP:ESSAY stinging together a lot of largely unrelated facts. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You think this is about foreign attacks on New Spain and brazil? Wikipedia certainly has a lot of users that can't even comprehend what they read. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the other well-reasoned responses. Unimpressed by the arguments put forth by the article's creator. Intothatdarkness 16:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unimpressed by the lack of intellect you display as much as the previous responses you quote. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly Wikipedia:Not here. And also lacking competence by all appearances. Intothatdarkness 01:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This page is not technically an essay, although the title would give you reason to believe so. Nor is it a list, technically. However, it is synthesis of original research. It's a good question as that what exactly this is. It's more of a cross-categorization, which is more appropriate for a journal than an encyclopedia. In any case, it needs to be, at the least, moved to a different name. At the most, it might need to be started from scratch. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm open for name suggestions. However, it's literally just what the title says. Key events ordered chronologically that led to the mentioned separations. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:REDUNDANT in this essay, Avoiding Common Mistakes, Before creating a new article, run a search for the topic; you may find a related one that already exists. Consider adding to existing articles before creating an entirely new one. Additionally it seems like it may contain original research WP:OR or synthesis, since much of the content is unsourced. If it is TNT'd it needs a less verbose title. Note to Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken you are bludgeoning the process WP:BLUDGEON; please let the AfD process unfold naturally rather than attacking other editors with whom you disagree. Netherzone (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been constantly answering to the things posted by the users in this page. I've been arguing why the things they say aren't a valid argument for the deletion of this page (The long name is certainly the only one I agree with) and I have focused on that. Things such as the article being redundant, have already been argued against, and I have specified why it isn't redundant in my prior responses if you are interested. There's a reason why I said "Please note, I won't be replying to your comment here if it says the same as the ones above, which has already been addressed over, and over again." Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and over and over again is exactly what WP:BLUDGEON describes....please read it. For your convenience the first two sentences of this essay on editor conduct: In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people. Netherzone (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like a badly-written underclassmen assignment crammed into the last day, author has synthesized unconnected topics in the hopes that it'd be passed off as coherent. If your opening line of the timeline is Some time after... and not a specific date, then you do not have a grasp on the subject matter. Zaathras (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Some time after" means there's no grasp? No. It means it's some time after, literally, and if there's dates such as 1521 (New Spain is created) to 1536 (Pedro gets to the Americas) I can choose to say "Some time after (1521) the creation of New Spain, etc" without problems. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 23:51, 23 May 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Uzelac[edit]

Milan Uzelac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:NACADEMICS. No sources, did WP:BEFORE and was unable to find anything, looked at other wikis and couldn't find sources there only links to papers he wrote. Is a member of academic societies but is not an elected member of a prestigious one or a fellow in a major one. If sources are found please ping me and I'll withdraw this nomination. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 23:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Dr vulpes Jack4576 (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no WP:RS. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:42, 21 May 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. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space and submit it to AFC, contact me. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Rodriguez (fighter)[edit]

Pete Rodriguez (fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails General Notability and also MMA notability TestingBoy (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the mmafighting.com article read in conjunction with the rest of the sources amounts to SIGCOV Jack4576 (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I provide enough source for page to be okay for mainspace as well provding his backround etc..Pete is more notable then some other mma fighters that already have page but didnt fight in notable promotion unlike him. He is still active and signed with UFC .DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The bigger MMA Fighting article is routine pre-match hype and anyway only contains 2.5 sentences on him. None of the other sources amount to SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Draftify classic case of WP:TOOSOON. Ammending to draftify, as fighter will meet notability eventually.Nswix (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG and NMMA. Sources mainly on routine reports - TOOSOON. Cassiopeia talk 04:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drafity He will soon meet NMMA, so no reason to delete when the article may well be recreated fairly soon. Seacactus 13 (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why do several of you think he will soon meet WP:NMMA? That requires a top 10 world ranking and fightmatrix currently has him at #555. Papaursa (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in the article and BEFORE show primary, promo and stats, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  06:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete MMAJunkie and Yahoo Sports all have some mentions of this person, but that's all, mentions only. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I mentioned above, his ranking doesn't get him anywhere near WP notability. Fight results and announcements, along with appearances in MMA databases, also doesn't put him close to meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Lethweimaster (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of Roblox games#Natural Disaster Survival. Merge any usable sourced content. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Disaster Survival[edit]

Natural Disaster Survival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG with insufficient sourcing, just general coverage of Roblox that happens to mention the game, but no specific coverage on the game individually. Might as well be a failure at WP:NOTDB as well. Propose re-establishing the redirect back to List of Roblox games. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect? do not redirect the page because I am working on the page and do not restore the redirect while I am working on the article and I get a message that the page was redirected; I will see how I give the article notability by WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Julián Martínez (talk • contribs) 21:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I cannot find sources showing notability. You can write really well, but that won't save it. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per others. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Maybe consider Wikibooks instead. Encyclopedia article space is for pages that pass the WP:GNG guidelines. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I found this mention from PCGamesN but that's it. Sadly, despite being a part of my childhood, this isn't notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here. A huge chunk of my childhood. Oh well, I support a redirect. Blitzfan51 the manager 17:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • :Redirect. This is the kind of stuff that belongs on the Roblox Wiki. Here on Wikipedia, a redirect is all we need and want, until several independent news sources decide "hmm, let's write a 10-page editorial on this game.". I created the page with the intent that it would stay a redirect for a long time. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 18:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I am working on the article and I will also add additional references to it as possible so that it complies with WP:GNG ~ Alex | Leave me a message on my talk page! 20:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex Julián Martínez If you have found sources, now is the time to post them. Multiple people's search's has failed to find Significant coverage in multiple Reliable sources as is required. You don't need to add them to the article right now, just post them here so others can see if this article passes WP:GNG. That you believe that sources exist without showing that they do, or that you think that it will be fine with a little more work aren't arguments to prevent it's deletion/redirection. Only linking these additional references (to prove notability) will prevent it's removal. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex Julián Martínez In addition, you can also create a WP:Draft to work on articles that you are having trouble finding sources for but which you believe one day will meet Wikipedia's WP:PAGs. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cakelot1 i checked the references: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and [6]; the article have 4 references now ~ Alex | Leave me a message on my talk page! 21:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cakelot1 What I do want to add in the article is the direct link to the Roblox game but it appears that it is on the roblox.com blacklist and it won't let me and in the first place I don't know why it was banned because I also need to add the link to the Roblox game so that the article has the notoriety that the game exists. ~ Alex | Leave me a message on my talk page! 21:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex Julián Martínez, the key word being the "Reliable" in Reliable Source. This means we don't use self published books or videos, like your 1st and 4th link (see WP:RSSELF), or wikis/forums, 5th and 6th (see WP:RSPWIKIA and WP:RSREDDIT). A quiz and a self published presentaion (from the article) are not a reliable sources either. As to Roblox links they would be WP:PRIMARY and so couldn't be used to establish notability.
    What we need is in depth coverage in news sources/academic papers etc. (see WP:RSP or WP:VG/S for the sort of sources we are talking about). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok ~ Alex | Leave me a message on my talk page! 21:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Speaking of academic papers, I did come across some that covered the mod fairly significantly. For example, this source dedicates a 186 word paragraph to the mod (on page 24). There was also another article from Google Scholar which was cited 15 times, and has some interspersed commentary about the mod as well.
    I also found this and this from Google Books. Both books seem to dedicate a section towards the mod which ostensibly looks like it's significant coverage. However, I'm unsure of the reliability/independence of the publisher and because both books are in Russian, I can't properly verify the info the book says about it. Has any Roblox editor ever read these books and used them as a source on Roblox related articles?
    Also, I assume you were hyperbolic, but I don't think a "10-page editorial" is required for a source to meet WP:SIGCOV. While it decidedly does prove notability, I'd argue even a 200 to 500 word article or so should suffice. What matters is if there's enough to write more than a stub on a given topic. PantheonRadiance (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that first source would properly be WP:SIGCOV, but that second one seems pretty passing. To me the two books appear to be game guides sanctioned by the Roblox corporation (per the copyright section), so I don't think it would count as Independent. I think the first source would be good to expand the section in the list article.
    I will note for Alex Julián Martínez that if this article is kept it would have to be edited to be based primarily on these reliable sources (per WP:V). Lists every of object/event in a game don't belong on wikipedia and the images currently in the article don't conform to WP:NFCC. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would mean 2 sources. The Google Scholar source, and a reliable source I added. Not enough though, we need one more to establish notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I support restoring it back to redirect state, I will be fine with the author moving the article to draftspace (and significantly cutting down on the non-free image use) while efforts on the author's part or anyone continue to find the third source. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 23:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cakelot1, QuicoleJR, and A diehard editor: After doing another round of searches, I was able to find three extra sources. The first one is another scholarly source that analyzes the mod in the context of natural disasters. It also seems to go over how the game is used as a teaching tool to help students learn about geography and the environment. The original version's in Portuguese so I had to download the paper from Google Scholar and translate it from there. Unfortunately I can't send the translation link so you're going to have to download and translate from this: [7]
Also, I found two listicles from Android Central and Windows Central that contained a 100 word description of the game. Considering that they're both from the same author, both sites are owned by the same publisher and they say virtually the exact same thing, I'd count this as one fairly strong source. There were also Eurogamer listicles from the Brazil version of the website that also mentioned the game, but they aren't substantial.
Finally, I found a Chinese magazine which seems to talk about the game, but I can't find a way to translate it. Out of a good faith assumption, I guess it's fairly WP:SIGCOV?
So in total we have six sources that seem reliable, and give moderate to decent coverage to the game. Would this be enough to justify a Weak Keep? PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say so. The article would still need a major rewrite, but WP:TNT isn't policy. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese source talks about how players load into a map "such as a prison, amusement park, skyscraper, or construction site", followed by a natural disaster, such as an "earthquake, volcanic eruption, flood, tsunami, [or] meteor shower", and goes into how players must survive the natural disaster in question. Surface-level gameplay overview. Regardless, the sources provided are far too weak to suggest that this article should be split to begin with. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: After having a first go at rewriting some of the article based on the above sources, I'm even more convinced that this should be redirected. (Findlay 2017) which was treaty as the most substantial source above turns out to be a masters thesis, with most of it's space on the game taken up with listing each of the events in it. Not in my view substantial and not reliable. (Long 2019) seems to be a Bachelor's dissertation and is even less substantial. Everything else still seems to be listicles. I haven't as of yet been able to read the foreign language magazines but based on all the other magazine type articles we do have accesses to I'm not hopeful that they will give any further information. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After reading your response, I do agree with you on some aspects, but not enough to sway me towards a redirect yet. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, I counted the Findlay source as reliable on two accounts - as a research paper and a dissertation. The article had been cited by two other peer-reviewed journals according to Google Scholar, in line with the scholarship guidelines: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses…. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties." So as a dissertation that has been cited in some scholarly journals, I'd argue that it decently works as a reliable source.
The second source by Long was also cited 15 times in several peer-reviewed journals according to Google Scholar. However, I decided to dismiss the source because, as you stated earlier, it is fairly sparse coverage, and the fact that it was listed as a preprint, meaning according to the scholarship guideline it isn't exactly a reliable source, whether cited by reliable journals or not.
Finally, the Portuguese paper I linked above is an excerpt from "Terræ didatica", a peer-reviewed scholarly journal listed on the Directory of Open Access Journals. I haven't been able to find evidence that the journal is predatory or had any poor peer-review practices, so I would argue that it qualifies as a reliable scholarly source. As for SIGCOV, I verified that the mod is covered significantly through my translation of the source. Pages 3 and 8-11 offer the most commentary about the game, namely a brief premise and its gameplay, how it accurately depicts weather phenomena, and how the game revealed teamwork and collaboration amongst students along with language barriers. In that regard, it works as solid secondary commentary and analysis of the game as a teaching tool for students to learn about natural phenomena. Also, I'd argue that the PCGamesN and Android/Windows Central listicles may not be enough to provide significant coverage on their own, but would be decent enough for the reception and analysis section of the game. After I posted the sources, I thought of combining both the analysis of the game and reception of the game together, but it seems you already somewhat did that earlier today. Thanks for that.
However, if anyone else finds sufficient evidence that the "Terræ didatica" journal and any of the other journals which cited the sources I found aren't reliable at all, I'd be more than open to a redirect. PantheonRadiance (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat that I think (Findlay 2017) is very close to being passing coverage. Of the aprox 180 words, ~50 are dedicated to other Roblox mods, ~20 to what a mod is, and ~50 on a non-exhaustive list of the games disasters. This leaves basically a single sentence giving any actual useful commentary on the subject. I just didn't find it a very substantial source to hang and article on.
I agree that (Siqueira 2019) is substantial but again I don't think one substantial source and a pretty passing mention of criticisms is enough in my view to write a well rounded article. I really apricate your research, but from my point of view, everything of note that that can currently be said and sourced about this topic could fit in 2 to 3 paragraphs, and could be easily accommodated in Natural Disaster Survival section of the main list. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Roblox games#Natural Disaster Survival, the sources available for this game are clearly not reliable. Master's and bachelor's theses are explicitly considered unreliable according to sourcing guidelines, and the other sources, English or non-English, seem to exclusively be crufty listicles that would not pass VG/RS. Entertainment Focus is probably the closest to reliable, and even then I would definitely hesitate to use it to claim notability. However, there is some reliably sourced information such as from the passing mention in the PCGamesN article that is not in the main list, which should be merged there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Master's dissertations "are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence" per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I wrote above explaining why I thought the sources would fall under usable scholarly articles. PantheonRadiance (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — I have done the due diligence of looking into this game. The original content from this page is copied from the Roblox Wiki entry and cannot be used. Having read through this discussion, it appears as though editors are scraping through the Internet to attempt to find sources, rather than having them come naturally, suggesting that the subject here is not notable. One of the two research papers in here is a preprint and does not suggest notability. The comparable Adopt Me! has a variety of reliable sources that support the accompanying article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    well if they do exist after we scraped through the internet to find them does it matter as long as we found them? Doesn't that still prove notability? Blitzfan51 speak to the manager 19:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that what little sources have been found so far have been found through extreme measures (e.g. Google Books). What would establish notability is several reliable sources, ideally those on the perennial list, that demonstrate this article is more than a few sentences and a half. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't consider looking for printed sources particularly "extreme". However, I am also unconvinced SIGCOV actually exists. Trying to look for scattered mentions to cobble together is like building the foundation of a house after you sell it. At best it would need to be totally rewritten and submitted in AfC. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:PRESERVE. Most of the sources are unreliable. There are some WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs that verify this game's existence and that can be covered as part of the main Roblox article. I don't see any hope of an expansion into a meaningful and reliable article. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article was translated to Italian Wikipedia and moved to draft because it didn't publish well, so the other details of the article didn't have to be removed earlier. ~ Alex | Leave me a message on my talk page! — Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Elamragy[edit]

Hassan Elamragy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My before search was flooded with blatant paid-for interviews and self-promotion. The first reference in the article--a website that invites anybody to submit a piece[8]--isn't even close to being reliable and is likely written by the subject himself; the second reference is a (clearly paid for) interview; and my Google translate leads me to believe the two Arabic sources are much of the same. I also couldn't find evidence of a kickboxing or modelling career. – 2.O.Boxing 20:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Currently, I have put several sources, he is a rising actor and director, and she needs improvement, not deletion, according to my opinion Hichem algerino (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A rising actor and director? But, I thought he's a 'kickboxer, model and content creator'? I'm probably gonna get a telling off, but this article absolutely stinks of UPE. – 2.O.Boxing 07:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO, using vanity spam sites and others that are unreliable, possibly SEO sites. Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see nothing that shows notability as a kickboxer or actor. I also don't see the significant independent coverage in reliable sources that are required to meet WP:GNG. Interviews and blog articles are not enough. Papaursa (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oldřich Pragr[edit]

Oldřich Pragr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding any coverage towards WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC so far in his career. Best sources seem to be Denik, Nova and eFotbal, none of which cover Pragr in any true depth at all. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Camerun Peoples[edit]

Camerun Peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Moved to draft with hopes of improvment, but returned without any improvement, and with zero in-depth independent sourcing. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 19:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pawira Putra[edit]

Pawira Putra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced BLP with no evidence of meeting WP:SPORTBASIC #5 or WP:GNG. An Indonesian search yielded only stats sites and Wikipedia mirror sites. Viva was the best source that I could find, but it's only a mention in a squad list. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Wild[edit]

David Wild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable writer. He's written some articles and books, but there doesn't appear to be any WP:SIGCOV of him. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP BLP has been nominated 5 times for an Emmy: [9], significant reporter to Rolling Stone Magazine: [10], a New York Times best-selling author, book reviews: [11], has nearly 200 writing and 45 producing credits to his name. At the very least, passes WP:NBASIC.
  • Keep. Based on the Emmy nominations alone he meets the basic criteria for Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times."--SouthernNights (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christoforos Kourtis[edit]

Christoforos Kourtis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no evidence to support a passing of the bare minimum of WP:SPORTBASIC #5 for Kourtis. The best that I can find are Sigma Live, a copy of a press release from AEK, Sigma Live 2, which only mentions him twice along with other players, and Kerkida, another copy of an AEK press release. There does not appear to be any worthwhile independent coverage that would justify a stand-alone article in a global encyclopaedia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:06, 19 May 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! 23:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Hogan (guitarist)[edit]

James Hogan (guitarist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as an individual musician. Fails WP:NMUSIC and no WP:SIGCOV appears to exist. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:45, 19 May 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FXCentrum[edit]

FXCentrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non notable CFD provider that has little history and is promotional, references are promotional, directory listing or low quality review sites showing no particular notability for this company Sargdub (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: promotional references, COI, unreliable sources. Jack4576 (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article has several links to various independent sites, the links are sites that provide ratings and they are negative but also positive, a small CFD provider that is active mainly in African countries František Végfalvi (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article has several links to various independent sites, the links are sites that provide ratings and they are negative but also positive, a small CFD provider that is active mainly in African countries František Végfalvi (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The write-up contains numerous references to a variety of independent platforms, which offer mixed reviews, both negative and positive. It belongs to a minor CFD trader predominantly serving countries in Africa. Paolodc13 (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frantisek, did you literally regenerate that sentence in ChatGPT and log in as a sock to Ctrl+V that in? I don't think I've seen a more naked attempt to do so in all my years here. Nate • (chatter) 01:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The US and other countries are a no-go with this platform, it's based on a random island in the middle of nowhere for tax purposes (the company's principal officers haven't even bothered to visit Seychelles), and the keep votes only have contributed to this article and nowhere else and sound like they wrote their statements with ChatGPT. It's a COI PROMO SPAM piece that needs to go. Nate • (chatter) 22:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note František Végfalvi is a sockpuuppet of Paolodc13, who also participated in this discussion. I have struck the comments of the former. ✗plicit 00:43, 24 May 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! 23:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cache (Clothing)[edit]

Cache (Clothing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company does not seem to meet WP:NCORP for businesses nor WP:GNG. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no widespread substantial coverage on its operations, impact, or history. Its history has the claim of it popularizing high-end fashion in the United States. This, however, was later shown to be a claim made by the company itself. Thus, there is no verified substantial coverage. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 14:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enea Jaupi[edit]

Enea Jaupi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:GNG. The only sources I'm able to find are passing mentions of transfer news or match appearances / squad inclusions. JTtheOG (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sitara (actress)[edit]

Sitara (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no references found ThisisDasvidania (talk) 16:28, 19 May 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 status of the nominator notwithstanding, the consensus of the discussion is to delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Esta Livio[edit]

Esta Livio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references found in Google, all are facebook, youtube, and scribd link ThisisDasvidania (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Searches in Urdu did not find any useful sources. The band has no entry on a number of music sites. Lacks sufficient coverage to keep the article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References include links to the official BBC Radio website and Radio FM91 website. The statement that only references are YT and FB is incorrect. Esta Livio (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super League Ultimate 13: Grand Final Team[edit]

Super League Ultimate 13: Grand Final Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is completely unreferenced and doesn't appear to be notable enough for a stand alone article. PROD was contested, suggesting a merger instead. I have no problem with this suggestion if anyone is able to provide citations, but I was unable to find any sources for this myself. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:37, 19 May 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 Croatia in the Eurovision Song Contest. Consensus to restore the redirect.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HRT Dora[edit]

HRT Dora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect repeatedly contested without addressing ongoing issue: absolutely no reliable sources or independent coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, as I was easily able to find six pages of Google results (See: [14], [15], [16] [17] and [18]) of independent sources, although some do rely directly on HRT for information they are for the most part viable. Could use with major additions and needs more citations, sure, but should it be deleted for lack of notability? No.
WhichUserAmI 18:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the proposal is to delete, the proposal is to restore the long-standing redirect. --Joy (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that now. Thank you for correcting me, but my opinion is still to keep the article and continue to improve it, as it seems to be a reasonably notable topic that could be improved upon based on the sources I was able to find. WhichUserAmI 20:05, 19 May 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

André LaMothe[edit]

André LaMothe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable programmer. This article has a 20-year history of cruft being added and removed, but the sources remaining still don't establish that this topic passes WP:GNG. ~TPW 14:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~TPW 14:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for self-promotion - notability must be established. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Computing, and California. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If reviews of books like The Black Art of 3D Game Programming (1995) could be turned up, we might have a case for WP:AUTHOR. However, reviews in old programming magazines might be hard to dig out. XOR'easter (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll be the first to admit I haven't determined notability for a computer author before, so I'm willing to change my mind if strong alternative views are put forward. However, I did a search on Archive.org and turned up a number of computer magazines that reviewed works by André LaMothe. This includes reviews of his works in places like Game Developer Magazine, PC Zone, and other magazines (see the search link above to find the reviews). I also found a three-page profile of him in issue 4 of Make Magazine from 2005, where it's stated that he's the author of 15 books and hundreds of games (link to archive.org edition here). Based on all that I believe he meets our notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That article doesn't seem like a profile about him, but the . Given that none of his works have their own articles, it will be difficult to prove that his body of work garnered any critical attention. Maybe with actual links to the reviews rather than WP:LOTSOFSOURCES this might change. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Having multiple books each receive multiple reviews is a standard way to pass WP:AUTHOR, whether or not those books have articles of their own. XOR'easter (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A possible starting point: Tricks of the Game Programming Gurus (co-authored) [19]; Windows Game Programming for Dummies [20]; Black Art of 3D Game Programming [21][22]. XOR'easter (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in response to ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ: While the article I mentioned above is about the XGS console, it's almost totally focused on LaMothe's work developing it and his larger work in the industry. The article even describes him as the "Yoda of game design." While we can disagree if that article qualifies as a profile or not, the article does go a long way toward proving his notability. He also has had his work reviewed and discussed in a number of other articles in various gaming and computer magazines along with having an entry in Baker & Taylor Author Biographies. I've now added information from all these citations to the article. In short, the citations I've found shows he's a best-selling author of game development books along with creating his own games and systems. Definitely meets Wikipedia notability standards for creative professions.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SouthernNights - I investigated your claims and I agree that the subject passes GNG. Merko (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Confident that the sources established by SouthernNights establishes notability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - needs a clean-up, but subject passes the threshold for notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:24, 25 May 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schooner Fare[edit]

Schooner Fare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable band ~TPW 14:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~TPW 14:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is significant independent coverage of Schooner Fare over the years that meets the #1 criterion of WP:BAND: "Folk and Traditional Elements in an Emerging Professional Art World: Regional Music in the American State of Maine" in International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music, Dec 1990 (vol 21, no 2)[23]; 1989 The Berkshire Eagle (MA)[24]; 1984 Longview News-Journal (TX)[25]; 1989 The Reporter (WI)[26]; 2004 Sun-Journal (ME)[27]; 2001 Sun-Journal (ME)[28]; 2006 Kennebec Journal (ME)[29]. (If article is kept, I will expand it with these sources.) Schazjmd (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Schazjmd's reasoning. --Jpcase (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above by Schazjmd including journals and newspapers and there is also a staff written bio at AllMusic here. Together there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the demonstration of reliable sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:20, 25 May 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 Principia Mathematica. Decisions about merging or not merging can be made afterwards, as the original page history is retained. Sounds like not much merging to be done though.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writing of Principia Mathematica[edit]

Writing of Principia Mathematica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Though the author and the book are of course notable, the _writing_ of the book doesn't have enough coverage for a separate article. Currently the article is just several lengthy quotes from Newton's and Halley's letters, with minimal text on "writing" of the book. The publication history is better covered in the main article, Philosophiæ_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica#Publishing_the_book. The title is also ambiguous, because Principia Mathematica is a title of completely different book. Artem.G (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Astronomy, and Mathematics. Artem.G (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought it would take more time to sort through this one, but given the existence of the main article Philosophiæ_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica#Publishing_the_book, this article's title/existence is redundant, and I agree it can be too ambiguous as a redirect term. It doesn't look like the writing process really had standalone notability from the book itself, and is better dealt with in the larger narrative at the main article. KoA (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the main article (content is already merged, but no need to delete the history). I broke out this sub-article in 2004 during a debate on-wiki about what to do with articles longer than 32k; even a few weeks later we were already discussing remerging into a single long article. That merge has already happened and the sidenav breaking Newton's life into subarticles is largely outdated. Isaac Newton's occult studies should likewise be deleted/merged into Religious views of Isaac Newton (which in contrast seems to have developed into a full-fledged article of its own). – SJ + 14:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Occult studies have a lot of problems, I started to copyedit and trim dubious and problematic claims, and I agree that it should be merged, though what part of it should be preserved is not clear. Artem.G (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything from the history that is worthwhile and might have been overlooked into Philosophiæ_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica. We don't need this page, but we also don't need to delete its history. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What would be merged exactly? There's nothing sourced that doesn't already exist at the parent article really, especially since this was split out and in the parent's history already. That's especially considering there are only about three lines in this article. It seems more of a case for redirect at best outside of delete, though I still agree with the nom on the redirect not being that suitable either. KoA (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was more in the page at the time of the AfD nomination, and some of that might be worth bringing over in condensed form. XOR'easter (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was all removed as unsourced and unusable because of that. I'm honestly surprised that huge chunk survived as long as it did. It wouldn't have any place in a merge though. If there is sourced discussion to be had of the correspondence, then sources would be used at the target rather than Wikipedia's quoting of it the primary material. KoA (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those quotations were all from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica entry and wouldn't be hard to source [30], if one wanted to use some small parts of them. XOR'easter (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I was getting at honestly. There's nothing in the article itself that really needs to be merged, especially if it's just one lone source that was excessively quoting the primary material. If something is going to be sourced at the parent article, that can be done independently. That's why any merge is functionally just going to be a redirect at this point. KoA (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - there is nothing worth merging and the title is ambiguous. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:50, 29 May 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! 07:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Ben Badida[edit]

Hassan Ben Badida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A highly promotional article, with a lot of sockpuppetry surrounding its history. It's been repeatedly draftified / declined at AfC, so I thought an AfD discussion to establish a consensus on notability would probably be more useful than moving it to draft yet again.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:48, 19 May 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.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Hernadi[edit]

Fatima Hernadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A highly promotional article, with a lot of sockpuppetry surrounding its history. It's been repeatedly draftified / declined at AfC, so I thought an AfD discussion to establish a consensus on notability would probably be more useful than moving it to draft yet again.

  • Keep Quite a long career as a character actor. Couple of interviews and profiles as refs. Not a lot. Was a WP:BEFORE done on the article. I'm sure there must be more as the secondary source is quite glowing. That combined with the long film career with several series makes her more than borderline for the moment. I'll put it on my watchlist. scope_creepTalk 08:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 08:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Kids English High School[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Golden Kids English High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources, no indication of Notability. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since the previous deletion discussion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Carpatair destinations[edit]

List of Carpatair destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the 2018 RFC that decided complete lists of airline destinations are not to be hosted on Wikpedia. EDIT: per a subsequent AN discussion these were to be AFD'd in orderly fashion, with a link to the original RFC, and the closer of any AFD was to take into account the result of the RFC in their close. Additionally fails WP:NOT (specifically WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY).

Even if the RFC were to be overturned somehow, and the NOT issues removed - neither of which appears possible - WP:CORP would still be failed since the only source for this article that is clearly about the activities of a commerical organisation and falls within CORP, is the website of the company itself. WP:BEFORE searching is not required here since the failures of this article are more fundamental than a mere lack of notability (and BEFORE is anyway not a strict requirement), but I did a search anyway and found nothing that would remedy this.

This article was previously nominated for deletion in 2007, 2008, and 2015. Whilst it might seem unusual to nominate an article for deletion for a fourth time, in this case the AFDs were clearly superseded by the 2018 RFC which was at a higher WP:CONLEVEL and which recognised the outcome of the previous AFDs as a mistake.FOARP (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - list is not covered in detail by sources independent of Carpatair that can also be considered reliable. Also, Wikipedia is not a directory of plane destinations. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmed Merejan[edit]

Mehmed Merejan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only evidence of notability is being the winner of Open Society Institute Roma Literary Award, an award that was only reported on by its host. The user who deprod it provided a book as a source, but the subject was only mentioned once as part of a list. No other significant coverage can be found about the subject, fails WP:GNG Tutwakhamoe (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I literally can’t find anything except the prize announcement. Mccapra (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. The article is very small and does not cover the subject matter --Loewstisch (talk) 18:16, 22 May 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 all except List of XiamenAir destinations on procedural grounds, which was not tagged for deletion. It will need to be nominated separately. ✗plicit 14:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Syrian Air destinations[edit]

List of Syrian Air destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also nominating:

Per the 2018 RFC on lists of airline destinations, these are not suitable content for Wikipedia. A subsequent AN discussion recommended these be listed for deletion at AFD in orderly fashion, with a link to the RFC, and the closer of any AFD was to take the RFC into account in any close.

The articles are failures of WP:NOT, since they are exhaustive lists of the services offered by commercial enterprises as well as being essentially travel-guides. They are ephemeral and impossible to maintain given the way airline schedules change constantly, but if you did try to do keep them up to date, what you would have would essentially be an airline news-service, and Wikipedia is not news. Nobody would come to Wikipedia to find out where an airline went - they would go to the website of the airline concerned to find that out. None of our readers wants to know every single route operated by an airline on some random day in 2017, as these will have little bearing on what services they operate now or operated at other dates in the past.

In additional to this, every one of these articles is dedicated entirely to exhaustive lists of trivial, run-of-the-mill details of commercial operations of a kind that WP:CORP expressly bars from being used to sustain notability, making the content of them essentially trivia and non-notable ab initio. This includes "simple listings or compilations, such as ... product or service offerings" and "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as...the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops [and/or] the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business".

The sourcing of these articles also universally fails to sustain notability under WP:CORP. They are either cited to the airline itself (including quotes from airline officials, airline websites, press releases of airlines, and airline blogs and Instagram accounts) or to aviation industry press that fails to meet the WP:ORGIND standard. No source is cited, having significant coverage of the destinations of each airline, that would meet the audience standards under WP:AUD.

Even if none of the above were an issue (and each point mentioned above is a WP:DELREASON in itself), much of the information on each page is unverifiable, making them WP:V failures.

Given the nature of these articles, I do not think WP:BEFORE searching is necessary - there simply isn't any source that would rescue these articles since their fundamental problem is the topic they are supposed to cover is one we have expressly decided is what Wikipedia is not. I therefore only did it for one of the above airlines (United Express) and did not find anything that would fulfil the significant coverage, independence, and audience requirements of WP:CORP. FOARP (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep These are useful to a significant number of people. For the various TUI pages, thess are actively updated on a regular basis, and usually quickly. Pmbma (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the thorough and well-reasoned nomination. Unmaintainable, unencyclopedic, and (most critically IMO) actively misleading to users unless constantly updated. -- Visviva (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Came here from CENT listing. I'm leaning toward deletion, as the nom appears to be well-reasoned (with the exception of the WP:V failure argument, which I don't follow — having only primary sources available doesn't make something unverifiable), but I have two questions. First, as a non-aviation person, could someone more familiar with it give some details/data on exactly how often airline routes tend to change? The nomination largely hinges on that, so I want to understand what "often" really means. Second, many airport articles list the airlines that fly to them and their destinations, e.g. here. This is the same info, so I'm curious what approach the nominator/supporters would like to see for those sections. Lastly, it appears that the nomination is not comprehensive, as I came across List of American Airlines destinations and there may be others not listed. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the articles refer to airlines that have gone bankrupt. An example is Thomas Cook Airlines. Others remain active like TUI Airways. There is a larger list of 450 similiar pages at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_airline_destinations. For small airlines, it's fairly typical that the list of destinations is on the same page as the airline itself - for example see Chalair Aviation. For larger airlines, it was decided to split the list of destinations flown by an airline into a separate page, simply because the list was so long - List of American Airlines destinations. Virtually every airport page on multiple-language Wikipedias in the world has a "Airlines and Destinations" section which list which airlines fly to which destinations - again see as an example Los_Angeles_International_Airport#Airlines_and_destinations. Most airport and airline destination pages on English-language wikipedia are updated pretty quickly - often within minutes, but almost always within 24 hours of a third-party reputable source showing new information. Larger airlines like American Airlines will announce several (between 5 and 10) destinations per year while smaller airlines might announce a new destination every 2 years. Larger airlines often base their aircraft at more than just one airport (e.g. American Airlines has hubs at multiple airports in the USA) - the cost of opening service to an airport it has not flown to before is high - it's usually financially better for an airline to open routes between 2 airports that it already serves (but which are not linked non-stop) instead of opening places to lots of new destinations - the number of new routes per year is usually far greater than the number of new destinations. Pmbma (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Most airport and airline destination pages on English-language wikipedia are updated pretty quickly - often within minutes, but almost always within 24 hours of a third-party reputable source showing new information." - umm..., this isn't true, is it? I mean, look at 1) the sources cited in the above articles (none of which really fits this definition, being at best industry press of dubious independence, and more often the airlines themselves) and 2) the fact that in most articles the date given is years ago. But even if it were true, it would be a blatant WP:NOTNEWS violation, because you would effectively be making a news-feed of airline destination updates. One thing I'm struggling with here is why, if the old schedules were as notable and useful as you seem to think they are, you would delete them and replace them with new schedules anyway? FOARP (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned "One thing I am struggling with..". Could you perhaps rephrase the question ? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking and I don't want to answer the wrong question.Pmbma (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the list of destinations operated by TUI on 19 September 2021 was notable, why replace it with the list of routes operated by TUI on 9 May 2023? If one was notable/useful, why replace it with the other? Unless, that is, what we are looking at here is essentially a schedule which we try (badly) to keep up to date. But then why the schedules for defunct companies (at a randomly-chosen date of typically no great significance)? FOARP (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's largely an attempt to keep up-to-date. People will often add or remove a destination without updating the "Effective as of XXX date" so it appears to date from (maybe) 5 years ago on first reading, but will actually include references from 3 months ago. I'm guessing this is because that to change the "Effective as of XXX date" means verifying all airports in a list in case there have been other changes in the last 5 years. I'm undecided whether an "Effective as of XXX date" statement, is a good idea or not - maybe better to just include the list of destinations instead. Regarding the Terminated/Seasonal label, this is to try to cover the case where an airline stops flying a route, and you don't want somebody claiming an airline flies to a destination based on a source from 10 years ago. The Seasonal bit is to avoid somebody claiming that an airline no longer flies to an airport because flights to a beach destination in the cold season cannot be reserved. There used to be separate summer seasonal and winter seasonal labels, but this got too difficult to update if demand to travel somewhere had a complex season - eg spring and sutumn but not summer or winter - a label of Seasonal was simpler.Pmbma (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry, but isn’t all this just basically pointing to the information being just not entirely true? An editor’s WP:OR approximation of what the sources actually say? FOARP (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you seek 100 % accurate all the time, then these pages will never succeed - but that's true of wikipedia in general as well. If you accept a little bit of stale info with data being corrected as and when people notice errors, then that's what the pages offer, just like wikipedia in general. If people choose to regularly update a page and have done so for many years, then it means people probably consider the pages worthwhile, despite their faults. In general, attempts to insert deliberately false info is usually reverted quickly.Pmbma (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pmbma - A few follow-up questions here focusing on WP:V for the 14 articles in the AFD specifically:
1) looking at the Thomas Cook article it says "At the time of its closure, Thomas Cook Airlines flew to the following destinations throughout Africa, Asia, Europe and North America". Thomas Cook closed in 2019 and all the references on the page for which a date is provided are from 2016 or earlier, and are about future events that hadn't happened at the publication date. The only reference which conceivably supports the data in the article is the Thomas Cook Airlines website, but that is undated and obviously now just redirects to the Thomas Cook travel agents website. The whole page is effectively unreferenced for the content it is supposed to show. Additionally, Thomas Cook was a charter airline which within reason would go to anywhere you paid them to go, so is there any sense in listing its destinations at all?
2) the TUI article says "As of September 2021, TUI Airways operates to the following destinations:". Again TUI is a charter airline so in what sense is this actually a list of the destinations it serves, when in reality you can charter them to take you anywhere? Is TUI really "serving" the destinations labelled as terminated? Almost none of the data on the page actually comes from September 2021, so in what way is this date supported? Same question for the services that are supposedly going to start in the future?
3) In the Sunclass Airlines list it says: "As of December 2022, Sunclass Airlines operates flights to the following destinations" but every single destination is listed as either "terminated" or "seasonal charter", so were any of these destinations actually being served by Sunclass Airways flights in December 2022? Because potentially none of these flights were operating that month. Moreover the only reference for which a source is provided is dated November 2022, everything else is an undated link to various versions of the airline's website. Again, this is a charter airline so the same "goes anywhere you pay them to go" issue applies. Again, this article is effectively unreferenced.
4) the United Express article states "This is a list of United Express destinations by carrier". what is presented is then a listing of different services provided by different carriers at different dates, many of which are presently not actually being served since things have changed since 2019. The only sources for this information are the websites of each of the carriers themselves, with the single exception of the a news-story quoting the Kalamazoo airport's website and an email from United that doesn't mention United Express or any of its carriers. How is the content of this article supported at all? How is WP:CORP passed if all the data comes ultimately from the airlines?
5) The White article says "White Airways serve the following destinations, operating for TAP Portugal or/and CEIBA International". TAP and CEIBA are also airlines, so are these actually White services? Again, this is all based solely on the website of the White company. Without a date, how are you supposed to assess the distinction between destinations that are currently served and the ones previously served?
6) Same date-related issues for Xiamen Air. None of the sources cited is actually for July 2016: some are earlier, some later.
7) Same issues again for Yemenia: every single destination that is currently supposed to be operated but one is supported by an undated general reference to Yemenia's instagram feed, the one that isn't is a one-sentence WP:CRYSTALBALL article from February 2023 about a service that was going to start to Ethiopia, carried in industry press and clearly coming from an announcement of the airline. Belgrade is listed as a previous destination, but the source for this is a non-RS/all-inclusive-source air-crash listing for 1958 which describes the flight as carrying a Yemeni foreign minister from Rome to Belgrade, so was this actually a service that Yemenia regularly flew?
8) Much the same issues again for Zest.
9) Much the same issues again for Syrian Air, which is all cited only to the website of Syrian Air.
Again, I'm just trying to understand here how these articles are supported at all by the sources cited in them, and how the notability of the destinations of these airlines under WP:CORP is sustained by them. I hope this doesn't come off as bludgeoning, I genuinely am just trying to understand how these articles could be considered to pass WP:V, let alone WP:CORP. FOARP (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay in response.
1 - Thomas Cook Airlines (along with the various current flavours of TUI) will happily sell a person a ticket to fly one-way or return between 2 cities. It sometimes set prices very high to encourage people to book full holidays (hotel + food + flight) instead of just a flight, and make it more difficult for people to organise their own holiday, but a flight-only ticket could usually be purchased directly from the Thomas Cook website.
2 - See answer 1. Same applies with TUI
3 - See answer 1. Same applies with Sunclass
4 - I don't know about United Express
5 - White Air operated many flights on behalf of TAP until last year. The page may need to be updated.
6 - A person who chooses to edit a single destination may miss the fact that the top of the page references 2016, or may not want to take responsibility to completely review the entire destination list to ensure it matches the current date. We should probably remove the "as of 2016" clause.
7 - I agree that Instagram is not a reliable source. Please remember that Yemen is in civil war, and you should not expect normal sourcing rules to apply in civil war
8 - I don't know about Zest
9 - Syria has been heavily sanctioned by other countries and is recovering from a civil war. Please be a bit forgiving
Pmbma (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sdkb. AFDing all of the airline destination articles in one go was basically discouraged by the close of the 2018 AN discussion, but frankly I thought it also better just to deal with a more focused set of articles where the lack of sourcing was clearer to avoid WP:TRAINWRECK allegations. I'll freely admit that I've chosen some of the less-well sourced articles in this set, but I don't see anything wrong with starting with articles where the case for deletion is (even more) clear - indeed, that's the best place to start. This is very unlikely to be the last word on airline destination lists anyway: further AFDs would be necessary even if this one passed.
My point about WP:V is that many of the articles contain statements such as "these are the services that XXXX airline operated on MM YYYY" but then give you a long list of services marked "terminated" (so they weren't operating them at that date?). Or "Seasonal" (based on what?) and it's not clear how the sources support the services at that specific MM YYYY date as they are about things that happened before or after that date. In reality, only the airlines can actually confirm what flights they're going to fly on a given day (and even then, only once the day is over will they know which flew). I don’t know if I’m explaining this well, but it's not the most important point here though - that's WP:NOT and WP:CORP.
I think you can get a feel for how regularly airline services change based on the revisions to the TUI page between September 2021 and the last update on 9 May 2023 (diff): in that time services to Oranjestad in Aruba, Varna in Bulgaria, Marsa Alam in Egypt, Fagernes in Norway, and Orlando in Florida were "terminated"; services to Liberia in Costa Rica, Copenhagen in Denmark, Finland in Helsinki, Frankfurt in Germany, Shannon and Cork in Ireland, Verona in Italy, Faro in Portugal, Gothenburg and Stockholm in Sweden, Edinburgh in Scotland, and Teeside in England were switched to or from, or introduced as "seasonal". The changes were roughly every month or few weeks. Many of the dates for these service-changes were either in the future when they were added (the changes to Marsa Alam) or are still in the future now making this WP:CRYSTALBALL content. A look at the average airline news website (e.g., this one for British Airways) shows a new destination announced roughly every month just for them (e.g., the stories about the new/resumed flights to Shanghai, Beijing, Aruba, Guyana, South Africa, Montpellier, Corfu, Mykonos, Salzburg and Innsbruck all from this year) - of course they don't announce terminations on the same page but these are likely as numerous, and there may be other service-changes not highlighted here, so again, we're looking at at least monthly schedule changes and probably weekly ones.
PS - Regarding airport lists: I have no view on that, though my instinct is more favourable to them than to lists that explicitly state that they are dedicated articles for exhaustive lists of the services provided by commercial enterprise on a particular (randomly-selected) date and which are blatantly no different to a list of Blockbuster Video outlets that operated on 17 March 1995. EDIT: also worth noting that WP:CORP has an explicit exception for airports (but not airlines and their services), so again, on that basis I don’t think exactly the same logic would apply to the airport articles. FOARP (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These lists/articles exist as a simple and easily accessible collection of information. How difficult would it otherwise be to find a full list of SyrianAir's destinations for example? DO you really want to delete 450+ pages for no reason other than that you consider them trivial? These lists have been present for years; there is hardly justifiable reason to delete them now.
"How difficult would it otherwise be to find a full list of SyrianAir's destinations for example?" - Syrian Air's website is right here => link, it has a pretty full explanation of the services that it can sell to you. I'm not sure why Wikipedia should give them free advertising and maintain a catalogue of their business services even if it is useful and has been around for a long time. This AFD is about the specific 14 pages nominated, even if other articles exist. FOARP (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What, then, is unique about these 14 pages? SurferSquall (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pages do not have to be uniquely deletable to be deletable. FOARP (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete just these 14 and not the other 400+? SurferSquall (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is about these 14 articles. They have been selected because they are especially bad articles, both in terms of sourcing and the way they offend against WP:NOT. This is not a discussion about deleting all of airline-destination-list articles. That such a discussion should NOT happen was an outcome of the 2018 AN discussion linked above where the varying quality of these list articles was used as a reason not to have such a discussion. Now that we have a focused discussion on 14 articles with especially bad sourcing and content, advocates of keeping them start talking about all the other articles: forgive me if this sounds like Catch-22.FOARP (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I’ve probably said enough in this AFD thread, but I’d like to reassure the keep !voters that I do not intend to jump right into a full AFD against all of the airline-destination articles if this passes. Obviously I can only speak for myself, but I think in that event some space should be given for a wider discussion, without any strict deadline, and not at AFD, as to what to do next, and a decent interval given before anything further is done. FOARP (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest opening a discussion on the relevant WikiProject SurferSquall (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all the respect in the world for the great work that the aviation and airlines projects do on articles about air-travel, this is not only a discussion for them. FOARP (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Because wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information that may or may not be accurate and which is better found elsewhere - for example from the airlines in question. JMWt (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point of these lists is to consolidate information that is widely spread out into an easily accessible and sortable list. SurferSquall (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1) This sounds like a WP:Synth if no-one actually publishes lists like these, but we do.
    2) Do these 14 lists specifically achieve that? Because it looks like in the case of Syrian Air they are simply reproducing information directly from that airline’s website (which, though it doesn’t seem to matter to anyone, is a straight-forward WP:CORP or even just WP:N failure). And the same is true of all the other 13 airline destination lists in this AFD - what isn’t based directly on what the airlines themselves say is based on non-independent industry press simply relaying announcements of the airlines, typically WP:Crystalball announcements about what will happen in the future. FOARP (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and restructure - I would merge these lists into the main articles on the respective airlines. A list of cities served by an airline is noteworthy information within that context (and can appropriately be cited to the airlines themselves as ABOUTSELF primary sources). This may require restructuring the list formats (say in bullet point format instead of chart format), but that should be easy to do. It would also make it easier to keep updated as cities are added/removed from service. Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Marge 450+ airline destination pages? SurferSquall (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if we keep any of these, it's far better that they be on separate pages, otherwise the main articles would be overburdened. WP:NOTSTAT treats these the same way. DFlhb (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them. Fails Wikipedia policy WP:NOT and is also pretty close to WP:TRIVIA. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a travel guide and cannot be relied upon for that sort of information to be up to date anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you find it difficult to keep the information up to date, I suggest you focus on other things! SurferSquall (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it is not necessary to try to refute everyone who disagrees with you at AfD, please see Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. - Ahunt (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See Jetstreamer's comment. Is is imperative that these articles aren't deleted, or else we risk losing so, so much more. SurferSquall (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since airline schedules change frequently, these lists are the type that do not serve an encyclopedic function. This is not to say that you can say "Regional airport frequently serves <larger international airports>" in the article about the airport, or which airports an airport has defined as their principle hub. But these go well beyond that. --Masem (t) 01:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Airports are transport infrastructure (i.e., built, relatively fixed and permanent facilities) so it is worth describing their important connections to other airports. Airlines and the destinations they serve are not - these are ephemeral business-services changing month-to-month which there is no cause to publish exhaustive lists of. This is particularly the case for the 14 airlines which are sourced in large part simply to the airlines themselves. FOARP (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

  • Keep I am in favour of keeping all these lists, either as stand-alone articles or merged into the corresponding parent articles, and to honour others' past efforts. If lists bother you, why not deleting, for instance, List of shipwrecks in 2023. I may ask what is the purpose of having a list of shipwrecks in an encyclopedia? This list is as encyclopedic as a list of destinations of any particular airline. Not to mention that List of Braathens destinations is a featured article on which considerable effort was put to take it to that level; are you going to propose its deletion as well? If we start deleting articles because some people believes it is hard to maintain them I'll just say to them to focus on other articles. Arbitrarily deleting is not the way of building an encyclopedia and may create the opposite effect of getting a large portion of Wikipedia wiped out.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This^ if we delete these, what's not to say just throw it all out? SurferSquall (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, List of Braathens destinations does give me pause. If an interpretation of WP:NOT would sweep out content that has passed muster with one of the project's most exacting communities, that's IMO a strong prima facie reason to reconsider that interpretation. That said, (and without prejudice to the concerns recently raised on that list's talk page) it does seem to me that the Braathens list differs from these lists in at least one fundamental way that renders it much more encyclopedic than the lists at issue here: it seeks to show to full historic range of routes covered by that airline, with start and stop dates for each. Such a list has lasting, plausibly encyclopedic value. But that's a world away from a list of "all routes served by this airline right now" (a moving target requiring constant updating to be of any value whatsoever) or "all routes served by this airline on some random date in the past" (which does not require updating, but unfortunately is of value to almost no imaginable user). For my part, I would view the at-issue lists here very differently if they were rebuilt on the Braathens model. But it seems to me that they would have to be rebuilt substantially from scratch (and also that doing so might be impossible without committing original research). -- Visviva (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • possibility of merge If consensus reaches deletion, I can merge all 14 of these back into their main articles.
  • Delete per RFC. Sitewide consensus concluded that this falls under WP:NOT WP:IINFO so it should be obeyed. Who knows how or why these articles evaded scrutiny for five years but they're here now. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What consensus? SurferSquall (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Axem Titanium, the TL;DR version of the reason for why the 2018 policy consensus never got carried out was a combination of vote-stacking at this AFD for the list of Adria Airways destinations (since deleted) and other Star Alliance members, and anger at the way Beeblebrox carried out the initial mass-deletion of all airline destination list articles unilaterally without going through AFD (see the AN discussion in the nom). The 2018 RFC at VPP (a WP:CONLEVEL higher than AFD) remains community consensus. FOARP (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I figured something like that happened. Community consensus should be implemented. I commend you for undertaking this (unenviable) task. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. When people want to know in which cities does an airline operates, they'll just go to the website of the respective airline instead of Wikipedia. Most of these lists only use the airline's websites as sources anyway, they are pretty redundant and don't add additional value to the topic. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the nominator and per WP:IINFO. We don't need articles that document the destinations of every major airline in existence. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful supplements to the main airline articles because where an airline flies is key information for putting the airline article in proper context. -- Tavix (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please see WP:USEFUL - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The advice that section gives recommends putting "useful" comments in context and giving an explanation why something is useful because bare "keep because it's useful" comments are not conducive. Do you not feel I have done this? -- Tavix (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I left you that link is because I thought you have argued exactly what is says not to do there, that these articles are "useful" and nothing more. - Ahunt (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I said they are useful supplements to the main article on the airline. Perhaps the most important thing about an airline is where it flies and these lists give that information. -- Tavix (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usefulness or uselessness cannot trump notability and WP:NOT per WP:USEFUL. For a list to be a valid WP:SPLITLIST it has to be notable and not offend against WP:NOT per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. In this case that would mean passing WP:CORP, but these articles don't do that. In all 14 articles in this AFD, the destinations presently serviced could be covered by a much more simple summary in the main article. For example, most of the destinations listed for Syrian Air (21 out of 40) are not ones that Syrian Air presently flies to. FOARP (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Historic destinations are as important (or even more) than current ones. Why do they not meet WP:NOTABILITY?--Jetstreamer Talk 15:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are effectively lists of destinations that the airline doesn't fly to. The usefulness of that to our audience (who are not aviation hobbyists as such) is not clear. Information sourced entirely to an airline and/or industry press fails WP:CORP which covers businesses and their services, including airlines and the destinations they serve. FOARP (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all — absent significantly-trafficked discussions more recent, the RfC remains the community consensus, and I see nothing in the arguments presented to dissuade me from thinking that remains the right call and right applicability of NOT/corp coverage. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per NOT and CORP. AFAICT there are no SIRS with SIGCOV on these topics, and even if there were I think an argument could be made that they still fail NOT and should be deleted. JoelleJay (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per WP:IINFO, airline destinations lists like this are ephemeral in the first case, and not really appropriate as an encyclopedia article. The existing RFC also indicates that there has been a well-established consensus that these are not appropriate topics for lists. --Jayron32 18:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all IMO these should all be deleted, primarily under wp:NOT but also under wp:ncorp. This is basically a list of products/ product catalog for the airline(s), albeit missing details like flight times. Some general summary type text describing where they operate would be good for the respective airline article. North8000 (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notices posted - I have left notices about this AFD on the following talk-pages: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines, Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies), and Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. FOARP (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NCORP and WP:NOTTRAVEL. These lists covering company services are ephemeral collection of travel information, and they are likely to become outdated soon. They are also poorly sourced, being taken from websites of airlines in the best case, and may amount to original research. I appreciate including the information on major destinations in the main articles, but this should be based on multiple independent reliable sources demonstrating their significance. --TadejM my talk 20:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all this is in WP:NOTDATA / WP:NOTTRAVEL territory. Commercial information is often too detailed and too unstable to provide encyclopedic value. Let readers find more about products and services at the relevant sellers. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom; good statement. Most keep rationales here center around usefulness (not a policy, not a guideline) and misunderstandings about why this particular set of particles was chosen for a batch deletion. I think that this is a well-thought=out batch deletion both now and when the concept was considered years ago in the RfC. Iseult Δx parlez moi 18:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most things that are just useful are not suitable to be in an encyclopedia. "Usefulness" does not mean enclyclopedic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment List of Libyan Airlines destinations has been deleted. Do with Wikipedia whatever you want. I will not make further comments regarding this.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a variety of opinions around Keep, Restructure or Delete. However, *if* we choose the Delete option, I propose the pages to be deleted be moved to Wikivoyage. Better to move data to a place that may be seen as more suitable and allow information to remain in a wiki which can be viewed and edited, than delete because it doesn't meet some people's views on what Wikipedia should or shouldn't be due to WP:NOTTRAVEL.Pmbma (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you discuss this with the people at Wikivoyage. The Traveller's pub seems like the right place to start. AFAIK they have not so far had articles about airlines but it could be they're open to change. Another option is a fandom wiki. FOARP (talk) 07:57, 26 May 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 Zerobaseone. ✗plicit 13:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Tae-rae[edit]

Kim Tae-rae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I believe that this page could be G10'd but I'm going to leave it in AfD. -- Wesoree (talk·contribs) 12:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable, all sources appear to be primary or WP:USERG
WhichUserAmI 13:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011 Myanmar earthquake[edit]

November 2011 Myanmar earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:EVENT, no lasting impact Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:45, 19 May 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Murphy (Australian politician)[edit]

Ryan Murphy (Australian politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local politician fails WP:NPOL Park3r (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: easily able to find SIGCOV after a basic Google search; but arguably it was already met beforehand. This person is presumed notable under the guidelines as a result.
Regardless, being a councillor at a major Australian metropolitan city meets GNG.
This is the third spurious nomination regarding Brisbane city council today; with minimal/no effort fulfilling WP:BEFORE. (see #1, #2)
Did they forget to collect your bins this week or something Park3r? Jack4576 (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Insults aside, it's been tagged since 2020 for notability. As per the content guidelines: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." Also local councillors don't meet WP:NSUBPOL for Australia. Classic WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument. Park3r (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is literally SIGCOV embedded within the article as it stands already. Here, and here.
This is not a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument. Pfft.
These are not ordinary local councillors, these are local politicians for a major Australia metropolitan city. WP:NSUBPOL isn't Wikipedia policy, WP:POLITICIANis, so I don't know why you'd bother linking that.
Clearly a strong argument is available that this person meets WP:POLITICIAN. Would appreciate it if somebody more familiar with WP's policies could weigh in here. Your pattern of multiple AfD's today without basic WP:BEFORE brings into question any pre-existing presumptions as to good faith. Jack4576 (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Local papers cover local politics. I did a WP:BEFORE and felt that none of the sources rose to the level where the subjects met WP:GNG. There are a couple of other Brisbane councillor articles that are marginal by policy, but I didn’t nominate because they were candidates for higher office. Park3r (talk)
so you're acknowledging there is SIGCOV at the local level. What's your point? is it that councillors at major metropolitian Australian cities are inherently non-notable? Even if SIGCOV is visible, just because that coverage is local ? Where do you expect local politicians to be covered for notability purposes. The national news? is that what you're looking for? Jack4576 (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" is it that councillors at major metropolitian Australian cities are inherently non-notable?" Absolutely false. Local councillors do get articles if they meet WP:BIO. However, local councillors whether it be Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne get no inherent notability on Wikipedia. This has been consistent across Wikipedia for years. You are again inventing your own notability criteria to meet your keep desire.LibStar (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making an argument for inherent notability.
I am making an argument that SIGCOV is established, and therefore, application of GNG guidelines requires that notability be assumed. Jack4576 (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, LibStar, I am not "inventing my own notability criteria". Even if a page doesn't meet WP:BIO, or WP:POLITICIAN; there still may be real-world reasons for nevertheless recognising that the subject is notable in an encyclopedic sense.
I have outlined my arguments as to why. (1) this is a major metropolitan city, (2) this is a particularly prominent political battleground in Australian politics, (3) this is a particularly well-covered political contest in Australian political media. Need more ?
Note, again, I am not arguing that any of the above reasons give rise to inherent notability, I am making an argument that this subject, in this case meets the GNG threshold. Feel free to disagree. I'm curious to hear what the non-deletionists think. Jack4576 (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While some of the sources need to be removed, like the one from his own website and this Courier Mail article which is permanently dead, some of the news articles does seem to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. It is a bit weird how Brisbane Times seems to be the only newspaper to cover the subject in depth, but it does seem sufficient for keeping the article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would argue that the coverage you refer fails to meet WP:BASIC where he is listed with other councillors in mentions about elections, reshuffles etc. One of those Brisbane Times references is literally a single mention in the context of another councillor potentially replacing him as the youngest councillor. Another article quotes a statement issued by his office, because he wasn't available for an interview. Nothing that adds up to WP:SIGCOV. Park3r (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Town or city councillors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and just having a handful of purely run of the mill local coverage in the local media is not sufficient to claim that they pass WP:GNG and are therefore exempted from NPOL — every councillor in every town or city always gets some local hits in the local media, so if that were how it worked then every councillor would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would be meaningless because no councillor would ever be subject to it at all anymore. So the bar for inclusion of local councillors is not "local media coverage exists", it's "they have an unusually large volume and depth and range of coverage, above and beyond what most other councillors could just as easily show, thus providing a credible reason why this person could legitimately be deemed a special case of much greater individual notability than the norm", which isn't what the sourcing on the table here is showing. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Bearcat. Routine coverage in local media that doesn't meet threshold for WP:BIO or WP:NPOL. There is no inherent notability from being a councillor for Brisbane. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The persons above claiming "there is no inherent notability of being a Brisbane councillor" are woefully ignorant of the fact that Brisbane is the most powerful city council in Australia. Yes, more powerful than Melbourne or Sydney's.
The fact that non-Australians feel its appropriate to weigh in and dismantle articles that document Australian politics in a NPOV manner is a disgrace; and frankly a perfect example of this website's existing policies not being fit for purpose.
I'm not even going to bother justifying the above in terms of policy. Any editor that has voted to delete this article, or any of the other Brisbane city council articles; lack perspective on the importance of this website as a source of lay information.
I'd like to add another reason for my Keep vote above: IAR Jack4576 (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brisbane City Council may be "powerful" but WP:NPOL does not grant inherent notability to city councillors. Feel free to start your own online encyclopedia where you won't encounter "this website's existing policies not being fit for purpose". In fact you could make all Brisbane city councillors automatically notable. LibStar (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments about starting another encyclopaedia are disingenuous at best Jack4576 (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? You are obviously unhappy with a lot of Wikipedia practices in particular application of notability guidelines, you've spent a good part of the last 2-3 weeks soaking up the community's valuable time with your constant arguing in AfDs and RfCs and even a RfA. Having your own encyclopaedia may be the best, you could even ban non Australian editors from commenting on Australian AfDs. LibStar (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop casting aspersions Jack4576 (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can look at your edit history of the last 2-3 weeks...there's loads of evidence. LibStar (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One could look at years worth of yours also Jack4576 (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly a response. A number of people have commented on your behaviour of the last 3 weeks. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and 'a number' of people have been complimentary Jack4576 (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your participation in this AfD, (among other recent examples) demonstrates your willingness to cast 'delete' votes without first running basic searches on subjects
Glass houses, stones, etcetera Jack4576 (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least I don't WP:BLUDGEON other votes endlessly like you are doing here in this AfD. LibStar (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh replying to arguments is WP:BLUDGEON now ? Give me a break. Jack4576 (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's maybe a bit disingenuous to call that disingenuous. You literally are telling people to find you at Jack's wiki. Valereee (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat. The sources are quite ROUTINE-ish and fail to demonstrate notability. Nythar (💬-🍀) 17:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I find the notion that only Australians have the pre-requisite knowledge to comment on Australian topics, and thus that non-Australians should not comment on articles about Australian topics, not only really gross and completely beyond the pale, but also counter to the entire point of Wikipedia as a global collaborative body. Curbon7 (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. LibStar (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not saying non-Australians can’t comment on Australian topics
    I’m remarking that it’s unsurprising that non-Australians would lack the context necessary to properly assess notability
    Its yet another manifestation of how the legalistic interpretation of this site’s policies is to its detriment; an example of the manifest absurdity in which deletionists go about their activities Jack4576 (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to stop casting aspersions. Wikipedia has been operating with its ever-evolving guidelines for more than twenty years; this isn't some sort of tragedy. Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not refrain from criticising manifestly absurd deletion decisions
    “change has occurred for a while now” “this isn’t so bad”
    What’s your point?
    Jack4576 (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SIGCOV does not mean "sources exist"; it means that a source demonstrates significant coverage. The sources that currently exist in that article have titles like "nominates new councillor" and "ward councillor Ryan Murphy takes Schrinner's place" and "LNP welcomes three new BCC faces" and "John Campbell loses Doboy in Brisbane council election" and "Council civic cabinet reshuffle", along with other non-SIGCOV entries and lists <-- these resemble WP:Run of the mill articles published routinely (of which very few focus entirely on Ryan Murphy himself). These routinely published articles do not indicate notability. Local newspapers will obviously publish articles about local elections and the like, yet since we lack a provision making councilors inherently notable (unlike larger-scale election nominees), such articles may be deleted on the basis outlined previously (i.e., the lack of SIGCOV). You might not agree with that, but that does not mean our deletion !votes are "manifestly absurd." I suggest you tone down your language a bit. Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Closer look at LNP council candidates" contains in-depth coverage of the candidate here. The rest of the articles might not amount to SIGCOV individually but assessed collectively I think the threshold is met here
    Its not good enough to legalistically refer to policy like "councillors are not inherently notable". That argument does not address that Brisbane is an exceptional case; exceptional because of its unique positioning in Australian politics. It is (1) the most powerful metropolitan city council in Australia, and (2) one of the most contested, and most publicised battlegrounds for emerging politicians for Australia's three largest political parties. The outcome of a Brisbane city council vote was discussed last week in a federal parliamentary debate involving Max Chandler-Mather
    I do think, in the above context, a decision to delete is manifestly absurd and contrary to Wikipedia's values operating at their best. I concede that (1) non-Australian editors might lack the perspective needed to come to that conclusion, which is certainly no fault of theirs, and does not disentitle them from participation, and (2) this may be more an indication of defective and legalistic Wikipedia policies than any issue with a particular editor.
    The outcome of the vote being delete would be manifestly absurd; but such an outcome is not be a reflection on a particular editor; and is merely a reflection upon this website's incumbent consensus Jack4576 (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Had you read through the "Closer look at LNP council candidates" source you mentioned above, you would have seen that this was its only mention of Ryan Murphy: "At just 25, Ashley Higgins could snatch Doboy ward councillor Ryan Murphy’s title as the youngest Brisbane councillor if elected in 2016." Other than that, there's not a single other mention of him anywhere in that article. And no, SIGCOV is not determined collectively; each and every source needs to be assessed individually. Nythar (💬-🍀) 16:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm replying here because I want to keep my thoughts all in one thread. Jack4576, I find your battleground me-versus-them mentality when it comes to "deletionism" at best extremely unproductive, and at worst outright bad faith. Comments like I'm curious to hear what the non-deletionists think above and The deletionists have wrought enough destruction over this site already at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (May 2023) are not emblematic of someone who is here to engage productively. I'm saying this as advice: if I were you, I would seriously reconsider my positions; it is not a good sign when an editor causes so much controversy at so many different venues in such a short period of time. It is obviously ok to be a staunch "inclusionist" (though I personally find the inclusionist vs. deletionist debate quite childish), and there are plenty of well-respected editors who are arch-"inclusionists", but you have to be able to work collaboratively with others, which is as simple as not insulting their intelligence by casting them as a big evil cabal. Curbon7 (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted and I respectfully disagree. Feel free to raise this on my talk page. Jack4576 (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The magical WP:IAR argument has emerged. The sources all fail WP:ROUTINE. There are many (very stupid) arguments appearing here, including that non-Australians should not comment (for the record, I've lived in Australia my whole life), inherent notability for councillors which is not true, WP:IAR as mentioned before, and WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 00:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources do exist; in fact we have SIGCOV here. The commenters above appear to think that despite those sources, the fact this person is a city councillor means that the article should be deleted regardless
    Frankly, this speaks to a deficiency in those editor’s abilities to parse Australian sources; probably stemming from a lack of knowledge about local Australian politics
    They are entitled to their view, but their comments should be accorded minimal weight. I note that the extent of their arguments so far is “councillors are not inherently notable” without acknowledging the arguments that (1) SIGCOV has been met here, and (2) this council is an exceptional case; as any Australian with a basic knowledge of contemporary domestic politics would be equipped to know
    Perhaps it would be best if the trigger happy deletionists could actually address those arguments; or actually engage with the argument that Brisbane is a special case; instead of VAGUEWAVING about ‘inherent notability’ - an strawman issues that nobody here is actually attempting to rely upon.
    I reiterate: non-Australian wikipedians are entitled to their view; but the fact that so many non-Australian deletionists are clamouring to delete multiple Brisbane city council articles recently is disturbing.
    It quite seriously in my view, causes me to question (1) their competence to participate in AfD discussions on this site, and, (2) their alignment with Wikipedia’s founding values, and (3) whether Wikipedia’s policies are fit for purpose
    It is a very serious thing to be deleting a useful public complication of information for the politicians of Australia’s most contentious local government Jack4576 (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    compilation* Jack4576 (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a reason for keeping. Casting aspersions on non Australian editors is not helpful. Similarly Jack, should you now refrain from commenting on non Australian AfDs to be consistent? LibStar (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AADD is not policy.
    Yes, certainly, I would refrain from advocating delete on non-Australian AfDs out of an abundance of caution Jack4576 (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And keep as well? LibStar (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on the arguments for deletion. If its a local perspective that has provided assurances regarding a lack of notability, sure
    WP's own policies discuss the cautious approach that ought to be taken toward deletion Jack4576 (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reliably sourced, non-trivial coverage [31][32][33][34]. We have no guideline that I'm aware of that determines notability based on the perceived clout of the position held. So the councillor of a major city qualifies based on coverage, not rank.--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2nd and 4th sources do not demonstrate significant coverage; they barely touch on him, and lack any information on him biographically and are very short in length. The 1st source seems to be WP:ROUTINE coverage of a local election that does not stand out, lacking almost any focus on him as a person, containing only a short review of that election with a few of his comments. The 3rd source is paywalled. Nythar (💬-🍀) 02:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting contrast with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicki Howard ongoing for another Brisbane councilor. I !voted delete that article due to weaker coverage.
    I encourage the closing admin to check out the refs I listed above on 21 May. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Bearcat, and with Nythar's above assessment of sources that were stated to contain significant coverage, which, in fact, they do not (discounting the paywalled source).—Alalch E. 22:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    why are you discounting a paywalled source ? Jack4576 (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not seeing anything but WP:ROUTINE coverage. (And there's a good reason to discount a paywalled source: if we can't read it, we have no way to verify the depth or the nature of the coverage. For all we know it's an interview of the subject, which cannot be used to verify the notability of the subject.) Ravenswing 02:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wines[edit]

Andrew Wines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local municipal councillor fails WP:NPOL. UPDATE: also appears to have been created by a user with a WP:COI (User:CnrWines)[35] Park3r (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: found SIGCOV simply by Googling his name. WP:BEFORE please. Jack4576 (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
link (1), (2), (3), plus, there is a courier mail article referencing a specific scandal involving him going on a Dubai trip during a natural disaster Jack4576 (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per @Jack4576. The article needs improving, but there appears to be a lot of non-trivial coverage online. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked at those sources from Jack4576, and all of them seem to be routine coverage from a local paper and they don't surmount WP:MILL. Could you post the online links that show non-trivial coverage? The first 3 pages on Google are dominated by the councillors own social media and other directory-type sites, and the Google News are just about various council proceedings. Park3r (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:MILL and any non run of the mill coverage is local coverage. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and above as it has been stated are WP:MILL local news, nothing that has SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS. The sources shown by the keep votes afer their exhaustive BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV and the claim that the Dubai trip may have SIGCOV is SOURCESMUSTEXIST, and even if found it makes this a 1E. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  06:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm seeing nothing but routine, scanty coverage and namedrops. Ravenswing 01:08, 22 May 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. Albeit a weak one, as all keepers state. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Tucker (singer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lisa Tucker (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSINGER and WP:NACTOR. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: sources already found demonstrate that the subject passes WP:GNG: not the greatest sources, perhaps, but fine for the standard and seem to be WP:SIGCOV enough (that is, more than a trivial mention). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:55, 27 May 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. Looks like folks advocating keep say that GNG is met and folks advocating redirect say that ONEEVENT isn't met. Neither side appears to have a clearly stronger argument and numbers are pretty close, either. Overall, it doesn't seem like there is clear consensus here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Vernicos[edit]

Victor Vernicos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable teenage musician. Suggest either draftify or redirect. WP:ONEEVENT applies too. -Ricciardo Best (talk) 07:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sourced, passes WP:GNG, no issues Toffeenix (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As of right now he passes WP:GNG. Good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023. Per WP:ONEEVENT, the subject does not appear to be notable outside of the somewhat lackluster appearance at Eurovision. He is young and may do more in the future, but he's not there yet. Most information in this article would be appropriate for the redirect target. Grk1011 (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023. While the article itself is a perfectly acceptable stub/start, the subject itself may be better off represented within the "Greece in ESC 2023" article given WP:ONEEVENT and to give a more holistic view of their participation in the contest from this context as their only notable event to date. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per both editors above. Clearly the subject is not notable enough for a standalone article. CycloneYoris talk! 09:34, 28 May 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. ✗plicit 12:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australasian Federation of Family History Organisations[edit]

Australasian Federation of Family History Organisations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and ORG. Source eval:

Comments Source
Primary 1. "Australasian Federation of Family History Organisations - Home". www.affho.org. Retrieved 2023-05-18.
Primary 2. ^ "Australasian Federation of Family History Organisations - Home". www.affho.org. Retrieved 2023-05-18.
Ad 3. ^ "Advertising". Canberra Times. 1978-03-28. Retrieved 2023-05-18.
Member org, not SIGCOV, not IS 4. ^ "Australasian Federation of Family History Organisations Inc". www.tasfhs.org. Retrieved 2023-05-18.
Promo for event 5. ^ "AU/NZ Family History Month - Home". familyhistorymonth.org.au. Retrieved 2023-05-18.
Primary, travel information for event Norfolk Island Travel Centre". https://www.norfolkislandtravelcentre.com/. 2020-10-09. Retrieved 2023-05-18. {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help): External link in |website= (help)
Primary 7. ^ "Australasian Federation of Family History Organisations - Nick Vine-Hall". www.affho.org. Retrieved 2023-05-18.
Member org, not SIGCOV, not IS Genealogical Society of Victoria". www.gsv.org.au. Retrieved 2023-05-18.
Member org, not SIGCOV, not IS 9. ^ "Nick Vine Hall Award - Newcastle Family History Society". 2019-02-25. Retrieved 2023-05-18.
BEFORE showed promo, mentions, nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.
Earwig copyright report: [36].  // Timothy :: talk  07:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TimothyBlue,
I don't know where else to find information. AFFHO is an organisation that covers over 20,000 Australians and Kiwis but doesn't appear in the formats you require.
The Canberra Times articles is NOT an ad, despite the title. Ngerbuns (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: erroneous nomination, Canberra times article is not an ad Jack4576 (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not in the article any more, having apparently been removed as part of copyvio cleanup. XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There doesn't seem to be much we can say about this organization as an organization. Is there a plausible redirect target? XOR'easter (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't appear to be notable Very Average Editor (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A pretty lazy delete - with just on some very cursory searching I have found that basically all significant genealogical groups in NZ and Aust belong to this organisation. Sure the article as it stands stood was lousy but with a bit of time and research i have improved it. Will meet the notability requirements. I suggest those who want to delete it reassess their positions.NealeWellington (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- As an umbrella body for local groups, this is likely to be notable. As with many such organisations, there is often difficulty in finding truly independent sources, but that is the nature of such societies. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep per WP:HEY thanks to NealeWellington, and per Peterkingiron. Deus et lex (talk) 20:37, 25 May 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. (non-admin closure) JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 00:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashutosh (spiritual leader)[edit]

Ashutosh (spiritual leader) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hello Everyone,

We hope you've been keeping safe, healthy and informed.

We're volunteers at Divya Jyoti Jagrati Sansthan (DJJS).

About the Organization: Divya Jyoti Jagrati Sansthan, established and run under the Mentorship of His Holiness Shri Ashutosh Maharaj Ji, is a registered socio-spiritual, not-for-profit organization. To realize DJJS's vision - From Self Awakening to Global Peace - we have chosen the grass-root level, to begin with. Currently, DJJS toils for the upliftment and empowerment of the most deprived, underserved and underprivileged strata of society. We envisage a world where compassion and empathy are the 'rule of thumb'. (Source: About DJJS)

Our Presence: With more than 350 branches all over the world, DJJS is headquartered in India and registered under The Societies Registration Act of 1860.

About His Holiness: Our Founder and Head, His Holiness Shri Ashutosh Maharaj Ji, is revered by millions of disciples and followers across the world. His Holiness is an epoch-making personality, a perfect Spiritual Master on the world stage who has mastered and subsequently revealed the eternal science of Self-Realization– Brahm Gyan to transform the torn and tormented humanity into a peaceful "global family". (Source: Shri Ashutosh Maharaj Ji)

Request to editors/administrators: We're reaching out to you as your platform Wikipedia is being maliciously used by miscreants for maligning information about His Holiness' divine and pious contributions to society. We found a page titled Ashutosh (Spiritual Leader) created by anti-social elements to spread falsehood and propagate misinformation about our revered Gurudev. This scam is deeply disturbing, offensive and unwarranted. The content posted on the page is nothing less than fake news and highlights the very opposite of truth and reality about His Holiness' noble deeds. Given Wikipedia is an open-source platform, we tried several times to rectify the details by editing the content. But the misinformation gang and opposing forces are reverting the changes. They're making use of editing feature to retain the old and incorrect version of the content. Hence making it literally not possible to sustain the fact-based truth. Request you to take down this page.

We have also enclosed a few of the well-researched resources and articles that are publicly available to prove the truth and showcase facts about His Holiness and DJJS's initiatives:

Source 1: Mahayogi Ka Maharahasya by Sandeep Dev (paid version on Amazon Kindle): https://www.amazon.com/Ashutosh-Maharaj-Mahayogi-Ka-Maharahasya/dp/9385936409

Source 2: DJJS Representative participates in International Peace Conference: https://www.djjs.org/news/djjs-representative-participates-in-virtual-international-peace-conference

Source 3: DJJS Representative delivers at 11th Spirit Harmony Multicultural Festival in Australia: https://www.djjs.org/news/djjs-representative-delivers-online-talk-on-science-and-spirituality-in-11th-spirit-harmony-multicultural-festival-in-australia

Source 4: Councilor Angela Owen met DJJS representatives to discuss the roadmap of upcoming social projects in Australia: https://www.djjs.org/news/cr-angela-owen-in-her-india-visit-met-djjs-representatives-at-hotel-pullman-to-discuss-roadmap-of-upcoming-social-projects-in-australia

Source 5: DJJS's Efforts Make A Difference for Visually Impaired: https://www.djjs.org/news/from-visual-impairment-to-self-reliance-djjss-effort-makes-a-difference-this-diwali

Source 6: DJJS Disaster Management Program Organising Relief for Needy During COVID–19 Lockdown: https://www.djjs.org/news/djjs-disaster-management-program-samadhan-organising-relief-for-needy-during-covid-19-lockdown

Source 7: 135 OPDS were organized for 2585 patients on February 23 by DJJS Aarogya: https://www.djjs.org/news/135-opds-were-organized-for-2585-patients-in-february-23-by-djjs-aarogya

Source 8: DJJS Marks its Support Towards Combating Climate Change: https://www.djjs.org/news/djjs-observes-earth-hour-marks-its-support-towards-combating-climate-change

Source 9: SAM at National Youth Festival (by Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports): https://www.djjs.org/news/sam-at-national-youth-festival-2017-by-ministry-of-youth-affairs-sports

Source 10: DJJS reaches schools to educate students to take an informed decision against drug abuse: https://www.djjs.org/news/bodh-djjs-reaches-schools-of-muktsar-to-educate-students-for-taking-an-informed-decision-against-drug-abuse-unmoolan-campaign-punjab

Source 11: Kamdhenu Gaushala Adjudged as the Best in India by Indian Govt.: https://www.djjs.org/news/djjs-kamdhenu-awarded-national-kamdhenu-and-gopal-ratna-by-indian-government

Source 12: DJJS celebrates success of Manthan-SVK - a holistic education program of DJJS for the underprivileged children: https://www.djjs.org/news/djjs-branches-across-the-country-celebrates-success-of-sanskarshala-with-nival-djjs-manthan-svk

Source 13: Kamdhenu Project - A case study for Organic Farming: https://www.djjs.org/news/kamdhenu-project-a-case-study-for-organic-farming

Source 14: DJJS awarded for work in Tihar jail: https://www.djjs.org/news/celebrated-achievers-of-indian-women-excellence-leadership-award-30-2020

We want to help The Wikimedia Foundation towards its goal of hosting Wikipedia as a reliable source and protecting the values and policies that allow free knowledge to thrive. And, highlight once again the importance of bringing out the truth. The currently posted content lacks authenticity and integrity. It is defamatory to His Holiness - the divine teacher who has guided millions of people out of darkness and vices, has taken mankind towards light, and embedded humane values in society.

As the official administration of His registered organization, we would like to request you to take the page down . Millions of His followers are eagerly awaiting your cooperation and assistance in bringing facts before society and standing with the truth.

Please let us know if you need any additional information from the organization. Looking forward to your action towards enabling us in reflecting His Holiness Shri Ashutosh Maharaj Ji's correct and factual details on your platform.

Best Regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiReviewer111 (talk • contribs)

Speedy keep:A conflict of interest is not grounds for deletion, and Wikipedia is not censored anyway. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 07:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 19. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 07:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Bad faith nomination by a devotee of Ashutosh who does not like the current content of the article and has been temp blocked for edit warring there. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Clearly notable individual. Contrary to the questionable assertation that the article was created by "anti-social elements to spread falsehood and propagate misinformation", reliable sources in the article verify the details mentioned there. Edit-warring to change the "was" to "is" for a person who has been dead for nearly 10 years is preposterous. gobonobo + c 15:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: You can't delete a page because you don't like it. This is clearly a CoI issue. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Bihar. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination, obviously notable. I'm going to close this AfD per WP:SNOW and the nature of the nomination. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 00:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Kalai[edit]

Kamal Kalai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail in WP:BIO ND WP:POLITICIAN. NO FULLFILL GEN. CRITERA FOR POLITICIAN Worldiswide (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Ronksley-Pavia[edit]

Michelle Ronksley-Pavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. Could not find indepth coverage, article is rather promotional. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Authors, Women, England, and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is way out of date (see her current bio), and while there are some new sources that mention her passing (here and here), on my search I did not find enough to meet WP:PROF and warrant me adding them to the page. Fails WP:PROF, WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not finding enough in a BEFORE search that is about her to establish notability as an artist or professor. She is a lecturer in an important educational field (gifted education & special needs), however I don't think her citation scores/h-index is high enough in her field for her to pass WP:NACADEMIC. Her bio on the Griffith University website states she is "award-winning", but the only award mentioned there is ‘Best Research Paper’ international award from the K-12 Education Administration, Ministry of Education (Republic of China) which I don't think is a notable award. I found zero about her as a visual artist: no record of shows nor reviews of exhibitions, and no museum or national gallery collections. Therefore does not pass WP:NARTIST. What I have found are things she has published but no reviews, therefore it seems she doesn't seem meet WP:NAUTHOR either. The two main editors of the article are Lolliedog2 and LaylaCat who are both SPAs which may indicate a COI (tho neither have been active since 2013). Her field of work and service is an important one, and she is obviously very good at what she does, however, she does not meet our notability criteria. If I'm wrong about this and others find SIGCOV in reliable sources, I may consider changing my !vote. Netherzone (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red diaper baby[edit]

Red diaper baby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability. Insufficient sources. Was not able to find when doing WP:BEFORE. Riverbend21 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Riverbend21 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are already a great many references in the article that explain this term's notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Red Diapers: Growing Up in the Communist Left – the phrase does not seem notable independently of the book which invented it. The article contains a total of four sentences including the lede. Insufficient number of sources, and of the present ones, only LA Progressive (not a notable publication) touches on the phrase; The New York Times mentions it only in its headline, Marin Independent Journal is about a book and its author, the other two references are about books and are used to source just their existence. The further reading section seems like a general collection of everything else that merely mentions it. Categories and interwiki link can be kept on the redirect. –Vipz (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The term "red diaper baby" has been around long before Red Diapers: Growing Up in the Communist Left was published. See this Google Scholar search. As well, see this magazine article from 1989, for example: New York Magazine. New York Media, LLC. 1989-02-13. Other notable uses of the term include

https://lccn.loc.gov/2004463389 and https://lccn.loc.gov/2017900690, as well as the summary provided by the publisher for https://lccn.loc.gov/2022931969 See also http://ptsss.org/docs/nst121.pdf#page=103 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then delete? Significant coverage of the phrase itself establishes notability, not "notable use" for whatever purposes they use it for. –Vipz (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if what's the case? Kire1975 (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE: there are plenty of sources. I added one. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page needs cleanup, but the sources are plenty sufficient to establish notability. Kire1975 (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:20, 19 May 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! 05:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vodien Internet Solutions[edit]

Vodien Internet Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The article relies on routine business listings and primary sources. There is some independent coverage on the company getting acquired, but that is considered to be trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. None of the references provides significant coverage of the company. Teemu.cod (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dark stain[edit]

Dark stain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems like a very minor aspect of the Burgess Shale that does not really warrant a standalone article. It would probably be better off merged into either Burgess Shale or Fossils of the Burgess Shale (probably the latter would be best). The title "Dark stain" is also pretty generic, so I'm not sure that it would be a useful redirect. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Organisms. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm no paleontologist, but my understanding from a brief Google search and from reading this article is that dark stains are associated with the fossilization process, not particularly anything specific to fossils of the Burgess Shale, although according to this article, it appears to be a fossilization artifact commonly found in fossils of the Burgess Shale (but also found in other fossils as well). RecycledPixels (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a barely remarked upon taphonomic feature at best, not something worth an entire article. I could see a merge/redirect to taphonomy as well. A search for "dark stain" on scholar [37] brings up results of mostly no relevance to paleontology. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Google Scholar is what I used in my brief search, except I used "dark stain" (in quotes) plus the word "fossil". The results that came up primarily had to do with morphology of fossil specimens, and used the term dark stain as though someone reading the article ought to know what a dark stain was. To me, that means that there should be an encyclopedia article about it, because after reading it, I now know a little more about what it is. But what I didn't come across was any sign that it was exclusive to fossils of the Burgess Shale. RecycledPixels (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked that as well, and many of the references (once you go deep enough) are clearly false positives that don't have anything to do with the "dark stain" fossil concept. "dark stain" isn't really a specific phenomenon, but is merely descriptive for a region of a fossil that is more darkly coloured than the rest of the fossil or the surrounding matrix. There is very little meaningful that can be said about the concept because "dark region of a fossil" is so general. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went back through the search again, and after looking at them harder, I agree with you, that the examples I glanced at were referring to stained areas a specific fossils, and not a common jargon to refer to the specific process. Striking the keep for now, thanks for the quick responses. RecycledPixels (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's already mentioned as a very, very minor detail over at Fossils of the Burgess Shale and doesn't really warrant it's own article in terms of WP:GNG, especially since it becomes WP:JARGON for a specific field. Dark stain is too generic of a term to use as a redirect, so delete. KoA (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unusable search term for a redirect, and as stated above, already covered as a small detail in the Burgess Shale article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prototyperspective (talk) 09:20, 23 May 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 Hammerson. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Atkins (businessman)[edit]

David Atkins (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. 2 of the 5 sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. AllyD (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The available coverage of this person relates to his former company role, for example "ISS said Hammerson had not considered the company’s declining share price – down 40% in the past year – when making share award decisions for the chief executive, David Atkins, and other senior executives." (Guardian,2019) and 2020 commentary "Hammerson allows chief a long goodbye despite big wrong calls". Nor does his role at a trade association (no longer listed at their site) appear distinctly notable. A redirect to Hammerson might be plausible though he is no longer named in that article, but deletion seems more appropriate in the absense of clear individual notability. AllyD (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Hammerson. Most of the source I've found online mention him in the context of Hammerson. I can't seem to find sources that would indicate he alone passes the GNG, so redirecting seems to be the best option. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment would someone search the term "David Atkins (businessman)"? also there are other Davids on WP: David_Atkins_(disambiguation). LibStar (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow Bellgrove rail accident[edit]

Glasgow Bellgrove rail accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient coverage to meet GNG or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Scotland. Skynxnex (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would probably keep this one. It did lead to some newspaper coverage not mentioned in our article, such as this[38]. It has also earned passing mentions since, as a fatal accident, these being fortunately rare in modern times.[39]. I'm happy at getting rid of articles on the multitude of "oops bumped into the buffers" accidents that caused no injuries, had no repercussions for rail safety, and were forgotten a week later - not every rail accident is significant - but ones that led to discussions about how rail systems should be run and laid-out, and which caused deaths, are probably notable. Elemimele (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Primary newspaper coverage, passing mentions, and causing deaths are all irrelevant to notability. We're only concerned about WP:GNG and WP:NEVENTS. This likely wouldn't have met notability requirements if not for the sources found below. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This accident was described in detail in these two books (which I no longer have, but fortunately noted down the chapter numbers when I consulted them some years ago). It is the archetypical "ding-ding, and away" accident, a term used by Vaughan. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have both books, will see what I can do. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done what I can with what I have available. Just a minor bit of referencing required. Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to the sources found by Redrose. I can't check them myself, so WP:AGF as far as it being WP:SIGCOV that gives detail rather than just describing the sequence of events. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Immittance[edit]

Immittance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like a WP:DICTDEF with a side dish of WP:OR, poorly referenced (to a primary source with a claim that this is where the term was coined). Notability is unclear. The term is used in various works, but this article likely requires a total rewrite (WP:TNT). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep with emphasis on TNT.
    WhichUserAmI 06:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhichUserAmI: Can you give any reasoning for your !vote? I'm very confused. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that the article has the potential to be helpful if it were rewritten, given the fact that it is a topic used by several fields as noted by Elemimele. Additionally, I am interested in topics like these and could be involved in research and the recreation of the article. WhichUserAmI 10:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article is badly referenced and very incomplete, but the briefest of Google searches reveals that the term is widely used in audiometry[40] but also in other fields[41][42]. AfD isn't clean-up, and the article isn't so dreadful that it can't be a foundation for improvement. Elemimele (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A simple before search shows several secondary sources discussing acoustic immittance, important in audiometry: [43], [44], and [45]. The concept is also used in electrochemistry and electrical engineering: [46], [47], and (a primary source but with a good historical intro. The topic is well above threshold for wikipedia notability. The article itself is a poorly referenced stub, but the content is fine as far as it goes. A notable subject and a stub with the WP:POTENTIAL for improvement leads to an obvious keep recommendation. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A widely recognized concept that should be described on WP. Neither impedance nor admittance is a suitable redirect target. catslash (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. Given the comments above, including a possibility that User:WhichUserAmI may improve this article, and sources found by others, I am happy to withdraw this AfD. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Accepted, began improvements to the article. WhichUserAmI 05:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Mendonça[edit]

Sophia Mendonça (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is 100% yet another attempt to use en.WP as a means for promotion. In fact, all the articles related to this person, their mother and their work are spams. It's goes way beyond en.WP. It started in the pt.WP (this article "home wiki") where this article was deleted, along several others related to it, via AfD and salted. The same account who created this article here also created this same article in the pt.WP, along with several other articles related to this same person. They also, created many of these same articles here. They also created and maintained items related to this person on Wikidata and uploaded several, now-deleted, images related to it, in WikiCommons. This is a coordinated attempt to use WMF projects to promote someone who is not notable per our criteria. None of the sources in the article have "significant coverage" and addresses the topic directly and in detail. Most of the source are not even reliable and several of them are primary/self-published. I strongly suggest that this article is deleted and salted. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 01:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Brazil. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 01:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on author: Last December they were asked to credit the original source for translated articles, and in March they were asked if they had an external connection with Sophia Mendonça. There has been no communication from the user so far. The Draft:Sophia Silva de Mendonça which was being edited in parallel by the same author, and which I have just BLARd, was tagged as undisclosed paid. Jay 💬 05:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per the detailed nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 06:00, 19 May 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. This is in part because the deletion rationale is based on personal opinion, not the quality of the sources. Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Sandom[edit]

Doug Sandom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being an early member of a popular band does not automatically make someone notable. He was replaced long before the band became notable and did not do anything significant afterwards. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CMH Masjid Jhelum[edit]

CMH Masjid Jhelum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local mosque. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. BookishReader (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and the fact that the only somewhat valid source is primary. Cannot find any sources documenting the mosque in more than passing context or beyond WP:USERG blog posts and videos.
WhichUserAmI 15:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preshafood[edit]

Preshafood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm not confident with the sources that Jack has added. Sources 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are all largely interviews, source 2 describes the technology used but doesn't talk about the company much, and sources 7 and 8 have only a few sentences each regarding the company. In my opinion, all of these fail WP:SIGCOV. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and CORP. JML's source eval is correct, none of the sources provided in the article or by the Keep vote come close to meet SIGCOV addressing the subject -the corp - directly and indepth. A few sentences do not meet SIGCOV for notability, they simply show existence. I trust Jack's BEFORE was as exhaustive and they presented no sources with SIGCOV, so BEFORE has shown nothing.  // Timothy :: talk  06:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources are interviews where most of the coverage is in the words of the company or its people, or do not provide significant coverage of the company. Peter James (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable company. Doesn`t meet GNG and CORP. Some articles cover News Website's paid advertising news.--Loewstisch (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Muzaffar Mosque[edit]

Al-Muzaffar Mosque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I failed to find any coverage about this mosque. Fails WP:SIGCOV. BookishReader (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Mack[edit]

Stephanie Mack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being notable solely as the wife of Bernie Madoff's son feels like a clear WP:NOTINHERITED/WP:ONEEVENT Nswix (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WhichUserAmI 06:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't pass GNG, notable not inherited twice removed. WikiVirusC(talk) 11:57, 19 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_May_19&oldid=1157869080"