Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 02:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Chemnitz[edit]

Kreuz Chemnitz (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)

Simply put, this fails to meet WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979  23:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Germany. Imzadi 1979  23:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Run-of-the-mill interchange. Dough4872 23:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references, and I think notability is now clear. As well, there would probably have been newspaper and magazine articles published when the structure was initially designed and built, and later when it was redesigned and rebuilt. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 01:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. And the vast majority of what you've linked is UGC or primary. Nice refbomb. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am undecided on this nomination, but there is no need to be insulting. --Rschen7754 02:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is quite literally a refbomb, that much is objectively true, as Eastmain dropped a pile of 8 references (largely primary) at the end of the lead section. Let's just say I'm a little frustrated at this user showing up all over the place throwing out policy-ignorant keep votes. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:MILL. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: It's just run-of-the-mill. Agreed with Trainsandotherthings. CastJared (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agrees with the User:Trainsandotherthings comment. Yasal Shahid (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. CastJared (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whilst I certainly appreciate Eastmain's efforts here imho the sources all seem to be "bottom of the barrel" - The majority aren't reliable or primary sources (There's 1-2 possibly 3 I'd say were just about acceptable but the majority are rather poor). –Davey2010Talk 17:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice I've done some searching with and without Google News and have not found any hits, and the fact that the dewiki article is not very well sourced leads me to think there are probably not sources. If any turn up, I am open to revisiting. --Rschen7754 18:39, 31 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. signed, Rosguill talk 02:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Chartres[edit]

Alison Chartres (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'm not convinced by the last AfD. Consensus has shown that ambassadors do not automatically meet WP:NPOL and there is no inherent notability of ambassadors. She is lacking significant coverage, most sources are her speaking in the role of ambassador, not her being the subject of the source as required by WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 30 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. WP:NPASR applies. plicit 23:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam Stories USA[edit]

Amsterdam Stories USA (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)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. One minor award and showings at film festivals does not make a film notable. Nothing significant in the way of reviews found. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep The guideline about notability of films states among other possible indications of notability: "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." That was 3 times the case here and that is sourced. — MY, OH, MY!  (mushy yank) — 21:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:32, 30 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 23:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plaza Magazine[edit]

Plaza Magazine (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)

WP:PROMOTION-al article (beginning with the first revision [1]). MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:50, 16 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 23:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and is very promotional. Couldn't find any sources online. The PROD was removed with the rationale of "improve, don't delete flawed articles", which seems strange considering they didn't address the part that the article is unsourced. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:32, 30 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! 23:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Applegate[edit]

A.J. Applegate (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)

Doesn't pass GNG. AVN and XBIZ coverage is not sufficient. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Maxim is about the most RS I could find [2], not really useful. She's mentioned here [3] and here [4]. Last isn't a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 31 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 14:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Russell-Pinson[edit]

Dan Russell-Pinson (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)

BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:

Comments Source
Interview 1. "One-Man Development Firm Finds Sweet Spot in Educational Apps". www.gamesandlearning.org. Retrieved 2023-05-23.
App review, no SIGCOV about subject 2. ^ Hodgepodgedad (2012-02-02). "Stack the States App Review". Your BEST Homeschool. Retrieved 2023-05-23.
One sentence about subject. 3. ^ Ravindranath, Mohana (2012-09-05). "App developers wary of children's online privacy law". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2023-05-23.
BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. 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  21:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Mostly unsourced, questionable sources for a biographical article, minimal relevance. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:29, 6 June 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 12:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ASM-One Macro Assembler[edit]

ASM-One Macro Assembler (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 product; other than Wikipedia pages the sources I could find were user manuals and the like ~TPW 17:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 30 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 12:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Armond Powell[edit]

Gerard Armond Powell (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)

WP:PROMO and fails WP:GNG Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:41, 17 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 23:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There doesn’t appear to be justifiable evidence to support keeping the article. Little to no RS news coverage or notability. Go4thProsper (talk) 05:02, 31 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. WP:NPASR applies. plicit 23:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strat Andriotis[edit]

Strat Andriotis (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)

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claim here is that he and his music exist, which is not automatically enough all by itself in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him in reliable sources to validate its significance -- but the referencing here is entirely to primary sources (directory entries, content self-published by his record label) and blogs that are not support for notability, with not one shred of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage in real media shown at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This looks like a substantial article in Fanfare - ProQuest 1615777790 Nfitz (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even just basic "notable because GNG" requires more than just one "substantial" article. Especially when even that one source is a Q&A interview in which the subject is talking about himself in the first person: an interview source can be used amid a mixture of solid GNG-worthy sourcing, but it can't singlehandedly vault a person over GNG all by itself if it's the only media coverage he's got. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG does not say "requires more than just one "substantial" article". It literally says "multiple sources are generally expected" not "multiple sources are required". Please don't turn shades of grey into non-existent black and white rules. Nfitz (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One source is only sufficient if it explicitly verifies a hard notability pass on the order of "won a Juno Award". One source has never, ever been enough all by itself if you were going for "because media coverage exists" as the notability claim, especially if that one source was a Q&A interview in which the subject was talking about himself in the first person. Bearcat (talk) 01:12, 4 June 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! 23:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major achievements in Olympic team ball sports by nation[edit]

Major achievements in Olympic team ball sports by nation (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 cross-categorization and synthesis to combine the results of team ball sports and not other Olympic sports. I'm a bit confused by the article because each sport has achievements for both the Olympics and other world championships, which furthers the oddity of combining ice hockey and water polo in one list. Moreover, it's largely duplicative of pages like Major achievements in basketball by nation and Major achievements in baseball and softball by nation, so there's no need to combine these tables here. Reywas92Talk 22:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite into a list of articles. The scope of this article seems weird, as there doesn't seem to be many instances where different countries' achievements in all ball sports are being discussed and compared together. Nevertheless, I think it might have some value as a directory to articles like Major achievements in baseball and softball by nation and Major achievements in basketball by nation. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tutwakhamoe Already exists at List of major achievements in sports by nation. Reywas92Talk 22:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's not much of a guide to interpreting the tables, and once you've worked it out, it's clear this is basically a content fork as described in the nom - lists of major achievements that don't relate to a single sport of country are generally dubious, but being so specific here is just strange. Perhaps ping the main editors and offer draftification in case they want to make something useful from the data? (edit conflict) Or per the above suggestion. Kingsif (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A strange cross-categorisation for an article and as noted above similar content already exists elsewhere. Ajf773 (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if there's encyclopedic content for specific sports, then articles for those sports can be created. But this catch all article for "ball sports" is not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:44, 1 June 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 Royal Netherlands Watersport Association#Olympic sailing. Selectively, as noted below. Star Mississippi 02:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Olympic Sailing Team[edit]

Dutch Olympic Sailing 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 just a collection of navboxes. Not very many similar Country×Sport at the Olympic Games articles exist for non-teamsports. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! We need a SUMMARY table, not tables/templates/navboxes specific to individual games. It doesn't exist so in this merge nothing should move with the long paragraph! gidonb (talk) 16:41, 2 June 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 23:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of mainstream films with skiing scenes[edit]

List of mainstream films with skiing scenes (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)

While the topic of ski films is notable, this seems to be an indiscriminate list and it seems doubtful that the references could justify a list of films that happen to feature a skiing scene. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 19:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Sports, and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 19:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DELREASON#14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Specifically, this is entirely WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is such a self-evidently misguided idea for an article that I got curious as to how it came about. It should come as no surprise that it was created as an effort to clean up the ski film article of a bunch of poor content that did not belong there by moving it to a different article. Of course, the proper course of action would have been to simply remove the poor content; as the essay WP:CARGO says: Moving bad content into a separate standalone article does not get rid of the bad content. TompaDompa (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete bizarrely arbitrary topic for an article if there ever was one. What about “list of mainstream films with chess-playing scenes”? Or “list of non-Western genre, non-equestrian-sport films to feature horse riding in some form”? Dronebogus (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but raise the criterion bar to films about these sports and rename List of skiing and snowboarding films; possibly split in two. Both sports satisfy WP:NLIST: "The Best Ski And Snowboard Films Of 2022-23 You May Have Missed" (Forbes), 13 Movies About Skiing You Absolutely Need to Watch This Winter (Yahoo Sports), etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would change both the scope/contents and the title, which says something about the lack of viability of the current article. I would suggest that it would be better to start over, based on sources, rather than trying to add sources to a bunch of WP:Original research—the latter approach has a tendency to result in very poor quality articles indeed, just complete messes. If sources discuss the portrayal of skiing in films more than they discuss the films themselves, it might be more appropriate to create an article on skiing in film. Another option might be to cover films about skiing in the already-existing ski film article in a manner similar to how it's done at surf film (if sources do likewise). TompaDompa (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. I don't see how it is encyclopedic to list films where there is a mere few minutes of skiing in it. As mentioned above, a list of films where skiing is the primary focus, would be ok, but not built from this list. Ajf773 (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. If there is an encyclopedic article such as List of skiing and snowboarding films, then no objection to that being created. But there is nothing encyclopedic and salvageable in this current article. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the non-encyclopedic characterization. There are clearly "ski movies" (Warren Miller (director)'s output comes to mind), and there are non-"ski movies" where skiing nevertheless plays a significant plot point--Better Off Dead (film) being one such. Perhaps this would be better off as a category, but I don't know it should be removed entirely. Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a textbook example of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:57, 2 June 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 23:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beysim Beysim[edit]

Beysim Beysim (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)

Same sort of case as Isus Angelov. There are trivial mentions in a few places but nothing that can be considered as WP:SIGCOV. Beysim doesn't seem to even meet the minimum of WP:SPORTBASIC #5. All 4 references used are trivial mentions. My own searches yielded more of the same. Gong mentions the player in two lists but does not address him in depth. Blitz merely says Besim Besim scored the only goal in the 85th minute. Xnews is just a simple passing mention in a match report. Those were the best sources that I could find. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:56, 30 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 23:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chestnut Hill Realty[edit]

Chestnut Hill Realty (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, in my opinion, does not meet the Wikipedia's notability criteria. In addition, the article was initially created by a user whose name corresponded to the address of Chestnut Hill Realty (see talk page). Overall, this page seems like blatant self-promotion, which has no place on Wikipedia DuckWrangler97 (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. Skynxnex (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Plenty of hits for them donating to charity and about properties they've acquired, very much routine business dealings found in the press. Nothing we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Promotional article where just about every significant assertion comes from the websites/publications of, or out of interviews with, the principals. I'd ask the article creator (an SPA whose sole Wikipedia contribution this was) to disclose a COI, if they weren't long gone. Ravenswing 06:45, 31 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Myanmar National League statistics[edit]

2020 Myanmar National League statistics (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)

Similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2023 MNL statistics. Unnecessary WP:NOTSTATS article.

Excessive listing of stats in addition to 2020 Myanmar National League, which is already significant enough on its own in terms of stats and we do not need any more stats articles on this subject. This article exhaustively lists every single goal scorer, assist and clean sheet in the entire season, which is too much in my view. For seasons of other leagues, the agreed standard is to have a separate section of the main season article dedicated to stats and only listing the goal scorers and clean sheets above a sensible cut-off point.

See 2019–20 Premier League#Season statistics and 2019–20 Serie A#Season statistics as model examples of how this should look. 2020 Myanmar National League is fine as it is and this redundant extra stats article can just be deleted as there is no consensus that these are necessary. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that one is also unnecessary. I have put a PROD on that one. It'll need a separate AfD if anyone wants to oppose that one. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:32, 31 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss America 2024[edit]

Miss America 2024 (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)

WP:TOOSOON, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Was already redirected once and was contested twice, so I'm expecting a PROD to also be contested, hence skipping that step. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't really think it's too soon, it's basically in less than a year from now. Barring some terrible thing happening, it will more than likely take place. A few decent sources already in the article as well.
Oaktree b (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are already 4 contestants crowned, with a bunch more coming up in the next few weeks. I don't think its too soon for this article. Karalott84 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oaktree b, seeing as how there have been ninety five previous iterations it's somewhat likely the 96th will occur. Although the article's wording implies the pageant has already taken place "Miss America 2024 was the 96th edition of the Miss America pageant", I think the likelihood that it will occur later this year and the valid sources outweigh reasons to remove. It is a good faith entry in the encyclopedia and if we remove it now, it will only reappear later this year.
WhichUserAmI (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The redirect is intended temporarily; we need a confirmed venue and date before an article is created, and this has been consistent for any article, pageant or not (and the continued pageant project/ANI drama makes draftspace a no-go). Nate (chatter) 01:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrSchimpf I'm curious if you have some easy links to discussions/similar coming to that consensus. I don't recall seeing that requirement for future events when there's sufficient other coverage and it is likely enough to happen. Thanks. Skynxnex (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Skynxnex - The pageant project has been dead for a while anyway, so I don't see what weight something that doesn't exist holds.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oaktree b, the fact that there are contests being crowned who will compete, and we're at the point if somehow it doesn't happen (or is moved to next year, say), we'd still want an article about it and this is a decent place to start. Looking at WP:CRYSTAL again: for #1, it almost surely will happen and the event is notable; for the amount that this fits within #2, we know more than generic information, so this article passes since #3 through #5 are not relevant. Skynxnex (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm voting to keep this due to the fact that we already know that various people are qualified for it and that makes it part of the competition. I'd vote against it if Miss America 2025 was posted today.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 02:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Schools[edit]

Midwest Schools (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:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc.. source two is malformed: newspaper with no url or title even so cannot confirm if an article exists or mentions the school. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments News coverage about this school was not hard to find.
You can read the USA Today story referenced under "Wyoming" on page 4b here[5]. Here's an AP story about the subsequent reopening of the school after a gas field leak [6]. There's a long write up of the incident in Inside Energy[7]. Another story in the Casper Star Tribune[8]. KGAB[9], a different AP story[10], another in the Casper Star Tribune[11].
It's an important policy point that with a publication, date and page number, it doesn't actually matter that there's no link, because sources don't have to be published online.
In the past I would have argued for the deletion of this under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT, but in practice, those policies seem to have fallen by the wayside to a large degree. Jahaza (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - no comment on notability here, but deletion wouldn't be appropriate even if it isn't notable. Per ATD and SCHOOLOUTCOMES, if notability can't be shown, the article should be redirected to the school district article.
69.92.163.38 (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:NORG, lots of verifiable evidence from outside sources about the school. Plenty of news coverage and sources in the article. Meets WP:GNG, including significant converage that will be able to verify that the school is a real place. Please make sure to diligently review WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion, as AFD is not cleanup. BurgeoningContracting 04:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Natrona County School District Number 1. I have been unable to locate any significant coverage in secondary sources that "addresses the topic directly and in detail", per WP:GNG. Aside from a nasty gas leak, there is nothing written about the school, such as when it opened, its unique place in the community, its history, and so forth. The article also fails WP:ORG. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change my vote to keep, based on new sources added. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added two sources with content relating and written about the school. I don't see how fails WP:ORG, would you mind explaining? BurgeoningContracting 18:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Kudos to BurgeoningContracting for the WP:HEY effort. I have found clippings on newspapers.com that I will be adding to the article this evening. Besides, non-profit educational institutions are not required to satisfy WP:ORG (including WP:AUD): The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. (Italics mine.) The notability requirement for public or non-profit schools and universities is WP:ORG or WP:GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:27, 6 June 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brenna D'Amico[edit]

Brenna D'Amico (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)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. References are passing mentions of having acting roles, not signifiant coverage. Doesn't have multiple significant roles. Previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenna D'Amico indicated TOOSOON and result was to move to draft space. This should be done for this version too. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is an obvious delete – this is far worse than the earlier Draft:Brenna D'Amico that never went anywhere and was WP:G13'ed. Subject does not pass WP:NACTOR nor WP:BASIC, and that is still true 3+ years later. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: She played Jane, which seems like one of the main characters in Descendants (2015 film), Descendants 2, and Descendants 3 (see Descendants_(franchise)) then that seems like a WP:NACTOR pass. What am I missing? CT55555(talk) 19:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in the principal cast in any of those films per their articles. Not significant roles, just supporting roles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point. I also notice her role was perceived as significant enough by who ever wrote the article for the franchise to list it. And yet they didn't link to her, so that utterly wasn't a promotional attempt by anyway. So it seems like the significance is borderline.
    Considering all the other roles she has had, how certain do you feel that she isn't meeting WP:NACTOR. To me it seems arguable either way, depending how significant we see her roles. CT55555(talk) 19:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She has star billing including poster credits on various new movies including The Never List, Night Night. These movies didn't even exist yet when the last AfC happened. Definitely feels like it passes WP:NACTOR at this point.
Was the article a WP:STUB when created, yes, but with the additional refs from WP:RS now, it is clear it passes the actor notability and just needs a moment to flesh out, either in the article, or moved into draft. Raladic (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She has to have a major role, the films must be themselves notable (a Tubi original almost certainly isn't that), and she still needs to have significant independent coverage herself, as per WP:BASIC. None of those conditions are met right now – none of the sources at the article currently get the subject past WP:BASIC. I still think this is "delete", but if someone wants to "draftify" it's not unreasonable. But she is not notable enough for an article right now. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I think her role in the works mentioned above are significant enough, and sufficient in number, for her to pass WP:NACTOR. I recognise this is point on which there is legitimate disagreement, and the counter arguments above are reasonable, hence my "weak" !vote CT55555(talk) 11:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify leaning very weak keep Probably WP:TOOSOON, but getting there. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep alternatively draftify In view of the sources added by Raladic I change my vote from Draftify leaning very weak keep. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draft. My main problem is that the Deadline source is listing almost every role. If she was notable enough, there would be sources stating the fact. If only one source is capable of listing her credits, then she isn't notable yet. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 13:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Great point. And she certainly doesn't appear to get past the "passing mentions" guidance either. --IJBall (contribstalk) 14:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just spent some time doing the actual research and found a whole bunch of magazine coverage including a print magazine cover article in 2021 featuring her, so she definitely passes WP:SIGCOV based on the amount of featured articles and interviews, including a live TV interview on ABC 7 Chicago, and magazines from outside the US that I have now added to the article.
    It is also clearer now that in the two feature films "The Never List" and "Night Night" she had poster credit and main and leading roles, not just supporting roles and her upcoming roles in two announced movies, I believe it supports WP:NACTOR well beyond just her roles in the Descendants franchise.
    It was just that the article was nominated practically instantaneously after being put up (as a poorly sourced stub, that is).
    So per WP:BEFORE, the article could have been given a chance to develop using cleanup tags instead of immediate AfD nomination.
    Pinging @Callmemirela @Random person no 362478479 @CT55555 to please reassess with the new sources in the article. Raladic (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed my vote from draftify leaning very weak keep to weak keep alternatively draftify. The main reason why I did not go all the way to keep is that the sources you added are almost all interviews. Interviews are routinely discounted in deletion discussions, because they are not (fully) independent (see WP:INTERVIEWS). I do not agree with this policy and think that the number of interviews demonstrates notability, alas it is not up to me. The second reason is that I am not convinced that the movies in which she has main roles are notable enough to confer notability on the actors involved. So while I believe that someone like D'Amico should qualify for Wikipedia, I am not entirely convinced that she does given current criteria. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to change my vote to draft instead of delete. Per Random person no 36247879, the sources are repeated. I feel as if this doesn't notability yet, especially if one of the sources to list her credits is an interview. For example, I google Jennifer Lawrence's credits, and I'll have platoon of sources from Variety, Deadline, People, Forbes, NY Times, and Vogue to name a few. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 01:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Perhaps there wasn't enough coverage of her in 2018 for the first AFD, but there seems to be enough now to show the subject is notable.--Milowenthasspoken 13:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Roles in Descendants movies and sufficient sources, as discussed above. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    She is not a "lead" in the Descendants film series – her role was secondary. She is arguably a "lead" in Crushed, but that's a "Tubi original film" which is hardly a mainline "notable" role (IOW, it's the kind of TV movie that is going to be completely ignored in other media). When you take out passing mentions, teen gossip mags and interviews (which many feel, for better or worse, do not contribute to notability), you are left with a single profile in the Chicago Sun Times. I could see "draftify" as a vote here. But the subject does not credibly pass WP:NACTOR or WP:BASIC still. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion did not appear on any daily log page; I have listed it for the current day. --Finngall talk 16:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep She's in the tubi thing and the Descendants movies, seems like a decent enough case for GNG. She isn't "woman on bench in background" or "Woman #3 at coffee shop", like most of these ACTOR ones we see at GNG, she has a named role in at least 3 movies. Oaktree b (talk) 17:51, 30 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. I find the arguments to keep very weak; "it's harmless" has no basis in policy at all, we need an affirmative reason to keep any page. The navigational purpose argument is stronger, but does not have consensus. I don't see much argumentation about DAB pages for similarly-named conflicts, which I understand this page originally was; this discussion does not preclude the (re)creation of such a page, but it would not be at the current title. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars named for their duration[edit]

List of wars named for their duration (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:LISTN, no evidence that this is a notable list covered by multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Basically WP:LISTCRUFT. Nothing found in WP:BEFORE that would support notability (though honestly I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to be looking for) - this just isn't a thing.

Not a valid WP:DAB because there is no real reason to combine these into a single page.

Reviewing the 2015 AFD it just looks like people focused on the idea of renaming the page, rather than whether the resulting page would be of any use. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. PamD 15:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another unsourced list; I'd !keep if there was some sort of discussion about the use of time-periods when naming wars or some sort of critical discussion of the issue, it's just a fancy wall of text otherwise. Basically trivia at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous AFD was at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Years'_War The result was keep. Also rename to List of wars named for their duration. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Dream Focus 01:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix, Seyasirt, Clarityfiend, PWilkinson, Peterkingiron, Boleyn, Necrothesp, BD2412, North of Eden, Anotherclown, and Black Kite: as the contributors to and closer of the previous AfD at a different title. PamD 06:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I admit a COI: I saw the original AfD for a dab page because it was on a list of dab page AfD alerts, and it caught my interest so I developed it from the IAR-ish dab page (titled "Years' War") to an expanded, sortable, table. As I said in the previous AfD "It's trivia, but mildly encyclopedic". I now find several discussions of the importance of the choice of names of wars (eg Brookings, Quora, Bacevich) all of which acknowledge that duration is one of the options, used for many wars. Perhaps we need an article on "Naming of wars", which we currently do not seem to have (although we have one specific case: Names of the American Civil War), and which would refer to this, or include this list as a section. We have Lists of wars, to which I have today added this one. Jill Lepore's book The Name of War, while it is about the multi-named King Philip's War (which I don't think I'd ever heard of, in my UK education and reading), appears to include a discussion of the naming of wars. This list gathers together a large set of wars with a common characteristic: that one of their major names defines it by a time period. It is one aspect of the broader topic of "Naming of wars", and I think has value for the reader who can half-remember "What was that conflict, it was called the n years war wasn't it?" or similar, whether while solving a crossword or researching a topic, as well as the curious reader who thinks "OK, we have the six days' war and the thirty years' war, are there any others?". I think this list has a place in our encyclopedia, though perhaps in future merged into the not-yet-written article "Naming of wars". PamD 07:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the Brookings entry in my WP:BEFORE. None of them are sigcov for anything other than the naming of conflicts in general, not for the actual topic here which is "wars named for their duration". That this might be included in an article that might be written is not a valid reason to keep it. I honestly cannot see how this list would not be just massively undue even in such a context since it would be for a very specific kind of naming. Even if this were effectively a list split off such an article, for a WP:SPLITLIST to be valid it has to pass the relevant notability standard per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, in this case that would be WP:LISTN. I just don't see how this passes that standard since at no point are wars named after their duration discussed "directly and in detail" in any of these sources. Just to highlight the extent to which these sources are not sigcov for this article's topic, here's the complete relevant coverage in each article -
  • Brookings: "Other times, wars are named by how long they lasted, from just Six Days (1967) to as much as Thirty (1618-1648) or even One Hundred Years (1337-1453)." A single sentence of ~20 words.
  • Quora (which is most definitely not a reliable source) : "Others are named by their length (after they end) - 30 years, 7 year, 9 year, 6 day wars etc." A single sentence of ~18 words.
  • Bacevitch - actually doesn't address the topic of wars named after their length directly and in detail anywhere.
This appears instead to be a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation (WP:CROSSCAT), which is against WP:NOT (specifically, Wikipedia is not a directory). FOARP (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bacevich doesn't say much, but does say: If you incorporate the European conflict of 1914-1918 and the European conflict of 1939-1945 into a single narrative, you get a Second Thirty Years War (the first having occurred from 1618-1648). PamD 10:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not addressing the topic "directly and in detail", though, is it? It's a sentence of 34 words that at most obliquely references it. All I'm getting from this is "some conflicts are named after their length" for which, well, duh, but collecting them in a list just seems like WP:TRIVIA/WP:LISTCRUFT. FOARP (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is not a requirement that a list topic be the end-all-be-all of lists to be of interest or use to readers. BD2412 T 14:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a requirement that they be notable? And not offend against WP:NOT? This is a WP:CROSSCAT and doesn't pass WP:LISTN, your classic "List of X of Y" set. FOARP (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking me? I think there is sufficient support for the notability of the list as is, but would not be averse to merging this into a broader article on the naming of wars. BD2412 T 21:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 - Which documents do you think give this support? I agree that maybe two of the references above give significant coverage to a "naming of wars" article (not Quora, as it's not a reliable source) but only one of them even directly addresses the idea of naming a war after its length and that's in a single sentence of about 20 words. FOARP (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not appear to pass WP:NLIST, as evidenced by FOARP's analysis above, and the "keep" rationales above read a lot like "I like it" or it's interesting", neither of which convince me. If an article titled Naming of wars existed (Google Scholar has at least a few hits for the expression, so there's some potential there), I'd see that as a potential redirect target, but it doesn't and we sure can't redirect to a red link. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ljleppan: We can't redirect to a red link, but we can move this to that red link and build from there. BD2412 T 16:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @BD2412: I don't really see the current content as a useful starting point for that article. Ljleppan (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of confused why the people who favour keeping don't actually favour keeping but instead moving? To an article that doesn't exist? And if it did, it is hard to see how this list could be a useful part of it? FOARP (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How would we have an article on naming of wars that omits the list of wars named for their duration? BD2412 T 19:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very easily, there being no reason at all to list all of them exhaustively? For a WP:SPLITLIST to be warranted it has to pass WP:AVOIDSPLIT, which in this case it wouldn’t. FOARP (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep a useful list for navigation. List does not fail WP:NLIST, which states that there is consensus that lists of items discussed in RS as a notable group are notable, but doesn't say that other lists are not notable, but rather says that there's no consensus about "Lists of x of y" and other lists useful for navigation or other purposes.Jahaza (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NLIST says "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". I see exactly one 20-word sentence cited above from an RS that even mentions the idea of naming wars after their duration. This is not a discussion of the group/set since nothing is really said about them, much less multiple examples of different independent, reliable sources discussing it.
    What you're proposing is a notability standard for lists lower than WP:GNG, meaning that a list of wars named after their duration would be notable whilst an article about the concept "wars named after their duration" could not possibly be. This cannot be right since it would essentially negate GNG, as you could then write articles about the concept based only on passing mentions but simply include a list into them and, hey-presto!, GNG no longer applies. FOARP (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t know why we have most lists tbh. Unless it’s for significant statistics (not “oldest left-handed quarterbacks in Canadian football”), articles about lists, or maybe award listings, what benefit at all does a hard-to-maintain, hard-to-format article have over an automatically expanded and alphabetized category? Dronebogus (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that lists should not be used as a pseudo-category, or back-door route to write about non-notable subjects. If you can't write a GNG-passing article about "X", then "list of X" is also going to be non-notable. FOARP (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You should propose a change to the guideline then, not put up for deletion lists on the basis that they don't meet a guideline that doesn't say that. Jahaza (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the idea of tighter list requirements but my last experience at village pump gave a strong sense that the community is instinctively hostile to “more rules” Dronebogus (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What you're proposing is a notability standard for lists lower than WP:GNG, meaning that a list of wars named after their duration would be notable whilst an article about the concept "wars named after their duration" could not possibly be.
    I'm not proposing it, the guideline is saying that there's consensus that lists can meet the standard of notability as a list, but that they don't always have to. You can't just read one sentence of NLIST.

    There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.

    Jahaza (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m pointing out that that makes no sense, this is *particularly* the case as the majority of people !voting keep here are doing it because they think there *should* be an article about the concept “wars named after their duration”.
    Your’re saying you don’t think it matters that no such article can be written due to lack of sources, but it is the lynchpin of the keep argument in this discussion.
    Also, even in WP:USEFUL terms, I disagree that it is useful since we already have List of conflicts by duration which is where people will go to find wars that last X amount of time and receives far more page views (~20 times more) than this page. FOARP (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @FOARP That list sounded interesting, and I wondered about even adding a sortable tick column for "wars named after their duration" to provide the same kind of information as this list ... but it's in a poor state. It has a "sortable" duration column which doesn't function because no-one has done anything to standardise the sort keys (OK, slightly redundant as the list is sorted by duration, but it means it can't be sorted back once sorted by anything else). And apparently no wars have started since 2014. PamD 07:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of which sound like reasons to work on that page, not keep this one. FOARP (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mostly per nom. The argument to keep seems to be that it's WP:USEFUL. To which I reply: why not make it a category? If it is too trivial to be a valid category, I don't see how a list is better. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not too trivial, very little is; it just seems like some people are convinced 90% of our readers don’t know categories exist. Dronebogus (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If readers use a mobile, then categories don't exist for them. PamD 07:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UI issues are not a reason to keep non-notable listcruft articles. They are a reason to change the UI. FOARP (talk) 07:50, 3 June 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. signed, Rosguill talk 02:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Harmonizers[edit]

Alexandria Harmonizers (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)

basically unsourced. although there seem to be many sources on the web, most are unreliable or lack substance. lettherebedarklight晚安 15:40, 30 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 23:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hallmark of Harmony[edit]

Hallmark of Harmony (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 source is the chorus's own website, written really promotionally. a check for sources yields nothing substantial. lettherebedarklight晚安 15:23, 30 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 Procedural close‎. Nominator has been blocked from WP-space for disruptive discussions, and this proposal is in the wrong forum. signed, Rosguill talk 02:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

大妈[edit]

大妈 (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)

Merge to Dama, because there are only two dab items, one of which is most relevant to Dama. Q𝟤𝟪 14:50, 30 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karyl McBride[edit]

Karyl McBride (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)

Karyl McBride appears to be some random self-help guru. She's definitely not notable beyond her books, and those don't seem too notable either. ~Strawberry of Arctic Circle System (talk) 14:22, 30 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 List of solar eclipses in the 22nd century. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of October 17, 2153[edit]

Solar eclipse of October 17, 2153 (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)

We didn't have to create him 130 years earlier. Q𝟤𝟪 13:33, 30 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 delete‎. User:Spicy deleted as WP:A7. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maarten Nagtegaal[edit]

Maarten Nagtegaal (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)

Completely unverifiable, and not notable if true. Fram (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Netherlands. Fram (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Non-notable individual, there is zero coverage for him. He appears to be the son of a rich person, which isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely irrelevant non-notable figure. ULPS (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable figure. Creator claims that the information comes from knowing him personally (see talk). Schminnte (talk contribs) 16:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This might be a different person with the same name. Also probably a different person: This. The corresponding article in the Dutch Wikipedia has been deleted. Twice. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 22:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete almost a speedy for an unreferenced BLP. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete since cyber harassment of a lving person. Admin assistance appreciated! gidonb (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of solar eclipses in the 22nd century. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of September 26, 2117[edit]

Solar eclipse of September 26, 2117 (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)

There is no need for us to create a specialty in this eclipse more than 90 years in advance. Q𝟤𝟪 13:26, 30 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 List of solar eclipses in the 22nd century. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of April 11, 2108[edit]

Solar eclipse of April 11, 2108 (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)

There should be too early for us to create a story that happened 80 years later. Q𝟤𝟪 13:24, 30 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 14:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nissar Ahmed[edit]

Nissar Ahmed (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 business person and educationalist. Fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 12:49, 30 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 23:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Majstorović[edit]

Denis Majstorović (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 rugby player, cannot find any significant coverage (only stats pages, match announcements, and interviews). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 23 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 12:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The Italian coverage of the subject that I managed to find are either routine coverage (transfers to other teams) or passing mentions. There does not seem to be sufficient sources to pass WP:BIO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:17, 31 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 Tariq Nasheed with the option of merging. Nobody advocating to keep this has shown actual evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foundational Black American[edit]

Foundational Black American (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)

Term has only trivial mentions, I couldn't find anything better. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Premise 1: Wikipedia aims to be an inclusive and comprehensive platform that provides accurate information on a wide range of subjects, including various social and ethnic groups.

Premise 2: "Foundational Black Americans" is a term that has gained prominence and recognition in contemporary discussions on African American identity and history.

Premise 3: The term "Foundational Black Americans" refers specifically to the descendants of African slaves brought to the United States during the transatlantic slave trade and their contributions to American society.

Premise 4: The inclusion of the term "Foundational Black Americans" on Wikipedia would enhance the platform's coverage of African American history by acknowledging a distinct perspective and self-identification within the community.

Premise 5: The term has been used and recognized by various scholars, activists, and organizations, including mainstream media outlets reporting on the U.S. Census Bureau's distinction between "Black or African American" and "Black or African American (Not Hispanic or Latino) - Foundational Black Americans."

Premise 6: By including the term "Foundational Black Americans" on Wikipedia, the platform can contribute to a more accurate representation and understanding of the African American experience, highlighting the unique challenges and contributions of this specific group.

Conclusion: Therefore, to fulfill its mission of inclusivity and comprehensive coverage, Wikipedia should include the term "Foundational Black Americans" in relevant articles to provide accurate information on the identity and historical context of this distinct African American community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fijiwahwah (talkcontribs) 21:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foundational Black Americans (FBA) have gained significant coverage in various media outlets, including reputable news organizations, academic journals, and online platforms. This coverage demonstrates their notability as a distinct group within the African American community.

  • Numerous news articles, both online and offline, have been published on the topic of Foundational Black Americans, discussing their historical contributions, cultural identity, and socio-political impact.

FBA-related topics have been the subject of academic research and analysis, with scholars examining the experiences, achievements, and challenges faced by this specific group within the larger African American population.

  • Prominent scholars, historians, and experts in the field have written books, articles, and scholarly papers addressing the unique aspects and historical significance of Foundational Black Americans, thereby providing reliable sources of information.

The FBA movement and its proponents have been covered extensively in documentaries, television programs, and podcasts, indicating their impact on public discourse and their place within contemporary social and political discussions.

  • Foundational Black Americans have been involved in social movements, activism, and advocacy work, resulting in coverage by news outlets and publications that document and report on these activities, further establishing their notability.
  • FBA organizations and community leaders have been quoted and referenced in news articles, interviews, and public speeches, demonstrating their independent presence and influence within the broader African American community.

Foundational Black Americans have been discussed in online forums, social media platforms, and online communities, where debates and discussions about their historical and cultural significance have taken place, showcasing their relevance and interest among a wide range of individuals.

  • The term "Foundational Black Americans" has gained recognition and traction within academic circles, civil rights organizations, and grassroots movements, further solidifying its significance and notability in public discourse.

The growing awareness and recognition of Foundational Black Americans have prompted the inclusion of the term and related discussions in educational curricula, textbooks, and scholarly resources, emphasizing their importance as a distinct group within African American history and culture.

Fijiwahwah (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep There should be a stand alone article on the term Foundational Black Americans because of the media and cultural relevance and popularity of the term — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dresmond762 (talkcontribs) 18:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep Having a standalone article about Foundational Black Americans on Wikipedia is important for accurate representation, recognition of their unique historical contributions, and addressing systemic biases in historical narratives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rougeedoogee (talkcontribs) 18:45, 5 June 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 12:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World TradeX[edit]

World TradeX (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)

Some hype articles from obscure sites (the kind of sites like LA Weekly which seem at first glance legitimate, but seem to be mostly populated by badly rewritten press releases), no actual good sources for this, despite being called the new Amazon or Alibaba... 81 actual Google hits[14] is a rather clear sign that this is so far more a nothingburger than anything else, and a website[15] which starts with " ACCEPTING FULL REGISTRATION FALL 2022 PRE REGISTRATION IS OPEN NOW FOR APP FIRST ACCESS Click on the icon below" and doesn't have any further information doesn't really give much confidence either. Fram (talk) 10:36, 30 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 12:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burdickville, Rhode Island[edit]

Burdickville, Rhode Island (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)

Unsourced, could not find anything to establish this as a real or notable place. –dlthewave 16:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Rhode Island. –dlthewave 16:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found this reference: "Burdickville: Rhode Island Blueways". exploreri.org. Retrieved 2023-05-07. Google Maps shows Burdickville with boundaries, not just as a point, and there is a Burdickville Road. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 18:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hopkinton, Rhode Island#Geography. While it did exist, it does not appear to have ever had official recognition and does not satisfy WP:NGEO. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I found a "census" listing from 1885 which named this as a town. Also, the presence of the dam would indicate a mill of some sort in the past. That siad the documentation is extremely scanty. Mangoe (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I found some additional sourcing and content to add. if anyone has free newsbank access, the original of that Aug 23, 1931 article I cite can be pulled, as well as others, it looks like at [16].--Milowenthasspoken 17:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep population of 52 in the 1865 Rhode Island census[17]. A mill was operated there earlier in the 19th century[18]. Jahaza (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sourcing identified by Milowent, especially the Providence Journal article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:38, 31 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 12:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Elon Musk[edit]

Statue of Elon Musk (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)

The statue is not notable by itself, but was covered in press as everything else related to Musk. One line in the main article on Musk should be enough to cover it. Artem.G (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Godtres (talk) 11:49, 30 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of children of vice presidents of the United States[edit]

List of children of vice presidents of the United States (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)

Most vice presidential children are not notable in their own right. Interstellarity (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to the wrong person, sorry Alexcs114 (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Godtres (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I question when this would be useful. The overwhelming majority of Vice President’s children aren’t terribly important or are known for other things. TheRealJT1743 (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion about whether WP:NLIST is met might be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Carrite. I don't see any reason to delete this. WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't apply here because this is a list rather than a specific child. JML1148 (talk &#124 contribs) 06:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, There are children of the vice presidents of the United States who have had their own successful careers. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While this is a list of non-entities of only regional or ancestral interest, I agree that this kind of odd list does no harm and has enough links on it that a user unfortunate enough to land on this article might use it to get to an article is actually useful to humankind.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 01:02, 3 June 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 04:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outer Limits (band)[edit]

Outer Limits (band) (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)

Left a PROD last month which was removed, and I guess I missed that but we're here now. All I remember is what I wrote at the time: "Zero evidence of notability found." Couldn't tell you anything else about my BEFORE search at the time, but I trust I was reasonably thorough enough to justify bringing this back. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 30 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 Posy (given name). Vanamonde (Talk) 17:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posey (given name)[edit]

Posey (given name) (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)

recent creation - this is the same as Posy (given name) no need to fork Gugrak (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This particular article is distinct because the spellings are different and the name is probably also related to the surname. If anything, this particular article should be merged with Posey (surname) into one article called Posey (name) as I originally intended. See the talk page. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Posy (given name), as best solution for the readers, who will probably know if something is a given name or a surname, but may not always be certain of the spelling: having the similar first names all on one page is then the easiest. Whether the given name is related to the surname seems to be pure speculation. Fram (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The two people listed under the Posey article are both men and both use the same spelling as the surname, which has multiple origins per the cited source. I don’t have the sources for the bios of these men handy, but it would not be surprising if Posey was a mother’s maiden name or a surname belonging to a family friend or some other family member, as is typical for such usage in the 19th century. Someone can probably find the documentation. As a female name, it is referring to a flower or a nickname for Josephine or Rosemary or Rosalind, etc., per the cited sources. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Posy (given name), particularly because that article starts off with Posy, or Posey or Posie - since they all apparently have the same origins, all 3 given name spelling variants can share the same article. As I mentioned here, these articles might be able to be merged with Posey (surname) at a later date, but for now, I think a separate article for the given name is a good start. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:21, 1 June 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)Gugrak (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posy (given name)[edit]

Posy (given name) (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)

recent creation - this is the same as Posy (given name no need to fork Gugrak (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. Everything in the article is sourced and there are several articles about people with these names listed. There is absolutely no reason to delete it. Vehemently oppose. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:23, 30 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 06:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2023 Turkish presidential election[edit]

Reactions to the 2023 Turkish presidential election (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)

WP:N; unnecessary based on precedence. We've never created entire pages of reactions for elections as far as I can tell, even for larger nations such as the USA, France, or Brazil, or similarly regional powers such as Argentina. The only remotely similar article I can find deals with that of Belarus in 2020, which was deemed notable due to the divided claims of victory and massive protests following. With most of this article being simple congratulations, it can be far more appropriately addressed on the election page. The Kip (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Entirely unnecessary article.
Alexcs114 (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary, no demonstration that the reaction are notable enough for their own article. — Czello (music) 08:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Godtres (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to have been draftified already? --GGT (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • GGT, it was draftified by the creator and subsequently submitted again through AfC with just a minor change to a few sources. Since users here right now aren't in favour of draftification but rather deletion on the basis that this is outright not notable on its own, I've reverted the move to allow for this discussion to continue, as this may be an attempt to evade the AfD. ~StyyxTalk? 14:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – utterly pointless article, made all the more pointless by not actually stating what most of the reactors actually said or how they reacted. Salient points, if there are any, can be included in the main article on the election. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the points above. Aintabli (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If a reaction is meaningful, it should be described in context. This is not the place to catalogue without context entirely routine statements made after pretty much every election. Reywas92Talk 20:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this seems to not be anything of value, does not detail what reactions actually were. Masohpotato (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing worth merging, and this article is just a pointless list of countries that posted about the election. Would just be a WP:QUOTEFARM if the quotes were in the article, but it's even less useful than that. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 5 June 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 Nanae Haruno#Works. plicit 06:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Double House (manga)[edit]

Double House (manga) (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 evidence of notability. The article only relies on primary sources (the own manga volumes). Xexerss (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article fails to meet WP:N, and I was only able to find one non-primary source about this manga.
Alexcs114 (talk) 08:07, 30 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 23:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zettagrid[edit]

Zettagrid (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. References fail WP:ORGCRIT and I find nothing else in a BEFORE search to fix it. While not a reason for AfD, page is spam and created and edited by same SPA editor along with ZettaNet which has been prodded. CNMall41 (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete and salt the earth as we used to say... Andre🚐 03:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. All cited sources are primary publications, trivial mentions or routine coverages. Did not found suitable sources to prove the subject's notability. The account that created the article is pretty much dedicated to the article, pretty likely to be WP:PROMO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 20:23, 31 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 04:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Adamson[edit]

Darren Adamson (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 SNG (NBAD). PROD objected by User:Florentyna but issues not fixed. All sources are not secondary and none provide SIGCOV. Timothytyy (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The sources do not contain SIGCOV and do not establish notability. Avilich (talk) 01:54, 2 June 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) 03:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minha vida de trás pra frente[edit]

Minha vida de trás pra frente (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 another article created by Luciareis (talk · contribs) and related to this AfD. This is a case of WP:SPAM and WP:PAID. None of the sources in the article are reliable or "significant coverage" of the book. This is simply another attempt to use Wikipedia as a means for promotion. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 01:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Source 5 looks promising, but the book's title doesn't appear in the pdf of the article at all, nor does the author's name; something looks fishy here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be HOAX or using sources that don't mention the book as some sort of PROMO. Not cool. Oaktree b (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources are an Amazon listing for the book, a personal website, a youtube interview, and it goes downhill from there. Using self-authored sources and a sales site don't contribute to notability, source 5 is just not mentioning the book. I gave up after that. HOAX PROMO appears to be a thing now. Oaktree b (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Kacamata: Considering Luciareis' continued conflict of interest violations, you may want to file a report of Luciareis at WP:COIN. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:04, 30 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. Article already delted by User:BigHaz under G11. (non-admin closure) Bingobro (Chat) 10:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biraj Bhattarai[edit]

Biraj Bhattarai (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:SINGER. NO RELIABLE SOURCES Worldiswide (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 02:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Fails WP:GNG with no reliable sources. I have tagged it for speedy deletion due to unambiguous promotion. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alexcs114 (talk) 08:20, 30 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 23:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uttara Mhatre Kher[edit]

Uttara Mhatre Kher (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)

Passing mentions. No evidence of Notability, Fails WP:GNG. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:12, 23 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 02:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia:SingleEvent - A 3-sentence article, with no substance. Two of the sentences are not sourced. She was a contestant at the 1982 Miss World pageant, but did not win. She married and had children. Her sister-in-law is an actress. — Maile (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:10, 4 June 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.