Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 31 November 02 >

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 no consensus‎. There doesn’t seem to be any agreement with what to do with this article, and the discussion has descended into name calling and personal attacks, so I think it’s best to draw a line under it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

British possession[edit]

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

Article is a recently created stub, it has the narrow legal definition and has a couple of tangentially related legal cases to bulk out the article. Removing fluff I can't see this article as being anything but a dictionary stub and as such not notable ie it is more suited for Wiktionary see also WP:DICDEF for relevant guidance. Recommend deletion WCMemail 14:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]:

As I said when I nominated for deletion, this is only suitable for a dictionary entry. The term is a blanket term covering various territories, not suitable for an article. The article is being bulked out with tangential references. It seems a lot of comments are made in ignorance of what the term actually means. WCMemail 07:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a factually inaccurate statement based on a misleading source. To begin with, British protectorates were not British possessions, they were foreign territory subject to the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts: [2]. British protected states, League of Nations mandates and UN trust territories were not British possessions either. They were foreign territory. The Interpretation Ordinance (No 6 of 1968) of St Helena does not apply to any place outside of the island of St Helena, and relates almost entirely to a period when there were no remaining British protectorates. It is certainly not the normal definition. Please do not cherrypick from the first website you find on the internet. Most websites are trash. I have never even heard of that website. If you are going to cite sources, you need to cite real law books (usually printed or paywalled and very, very, very expensive). They have a great deal to say about this beyond the definition. To take just one example, Roberts-Wray claims that this concept was less frequently used because it was discredited by 1966, because it implied subordination (ie people in these territories did not like this concept). None of that is definition. That is commentary on a political controversy. James500 (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[3] FYI for any administrator reviewing this AFD, the above comment was refactored after I commented on it below. WCMemail 13:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it (as the nomination says) seems to be a minor law, that is not even enforced anymore. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Slatersteven the laws providing definitions of "British possession" are in force in numerous jurisdictions. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All of which are covered by many separate articles, we do not need an article, that looks to be )(almost) just a list of laws that contains the concept, many of which are no longer applicable. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If that were true Wikipedia would not need article on subjects like British subject, British nationality, British dominion, and so on. All of these are covered by many separate articles. Where is the Wikipedia rule that says there can't be articles on subjects that are governed by multiple laws some of which are obsolete and many of which are current? For example, The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations 2021 includes reference to "a relevant British possession". The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to jump in here to caution against the use of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; each of those articles can be examined in their own light and stand on their own worthiness. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish) 18:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose deletion of the in-progress article. The concept of a British possession is not, as the nominator claims, "narrow", it is rather, extremely broad, a fact reliably cited in the article. Historically, the concept has been the legal foundation of the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, the basis for the evolution of British subjecthood and British nationality law, the statutory foundation for the pound sterling as a globe-spanning currency union, and the legal foundation for extradition procedures within the British Empire and Commonwealth. Today, it remains a legally recognized concept not only in the United Kingdom, but also in various Commonwealth realms and Commonwealth republics, and an important part of British maritime law. Historically, various definitions have been used, and even today there are multiple competing definitions of legal relevance. Suggesting the article's deletion before it is even nearly complete seems wholly misplaced and is certainly premature. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some words of advice, if you vociferously defend your article as you did at Talk:British Empire then you're likely to influence the decision toward deletion. Your repeated excuse the article isn't finished doesn't wash, it can never be more than a stub and you've spam linked it to hundreds of articles. WCMemail 15:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not spam linked anything. Your claim that "it can never be more than a stub" is simply wrong. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your talk page history clearly suggests differently. I see you have no intention of following good advice. Bon chance. WCMemail 15:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen from that link, there is no substance to the accusation. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slavery was outlawed 30 years before any of these laws applied. This begins to look a but synthy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not bludgeon this RFC and let others have their say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 23. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 15:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being. This is actually a subject of enormous historical relevance. My main worry was that it might be a content fork of material found elsewhere (e.g. English overseas possessions or British Overseas Territories or British Empire) but it doesn't seem to be. This is globe-spanning fall-out of the gradual collapse of one of the largest law-spreading empires that ever existed, which has had ongoing consequences for many countries and people since the end of the second world war. It's about as far from minor as a legal situation can get. It is also perhaps not the best idea to nominate an article for deletion only two days after its creation, when it is obviously still in the process of being written. While draft space is the ideal environment to incubate a new article, there is no obligation to do so, nor must articles in main-space be complete (in fact, there is no such thing as completion in WP). Let's give this article some time to see what it develops into. Elemimele (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by an exceptionally wide margin. This topic has received significant coverage in many books and periodical articles. British possessions are a group of territories. One can speak of the British possessions. There are, and were, many laws that extend to every British possession or to any British possession. One can speak of the law or laws of (the) British possessions. The British possessions are presumably a legally recognized populated administrative region within the meaning of GEOLAND. James500 (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Presumably" - feel free to point to one. I'll wait. WCMemail 19:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck the word "presumably". All I meant by that word was "if my understanding of consensus about the interpretation of GEOLAND is correct". James500 (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to point to one...I'm still waiting. WCMemail 07:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wee Curry Monster, I looked up WP:GEOLAND, and it seems to me that the collective British possessions are a "Populated, legally recognized place". Certainly, each is, and they corporately are, a legally recognized geographic entity. In the case of Godwin v. Walker in New Zealand in 1938, the judge, having cited the entry "British possession" in Words and Phrases Legally Defined, said "I have no doubt from this definition of "British Possession" (see Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, s. 39) that this expression is used in the statute as descriptive of a geographical area …". (See: International Law Reports, Volume 23, 1960, pp. 284–295.) The area may have changed since then, but this fact remains. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really, so it'll be possible to define what this place is then. Go on, I'm waiting. WCMemail 00:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you said "It seems a lot of comments are made in ignorance of what the term actually means". I would have thought reading the article and understanding its content a prerequisite for nominating it for deletion. Read the article and wait no longer. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A notice of this discussion was placed at Talk:British Empire#A stub: British possession. Unfortunately, that thread has nothing whatsoever to do with the article British Empire and contains a lot of negative conmmentary on this start class article, including from the nominator. I do not think, for example, that a comment like this satisfies WP:APPNOTE which says "Notifications must be . . . neutrally worded", meaning that notifications must contain absolutely no criticism whatsoever. James500 (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • British Empire was just one of literally hundreds of articles linkspammed to this stub. The discussion there was characterised by bludgeoning from the author of this article. You might have had a point if the diff you linked to was the discussion notification but it wasn't this was. I don't expect an apology for misrepresenting my comment, which was neutrally worded but I consider my comment in the discussion was perfectly reasonable given the conduct of the author. I'll end by thanking you for encouraging the author to continue behaving as he did. WCMemail 19:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The words "I . . . will shortly be nominating for deletion" are a notification. Linkspam is objectionable, but it is a grounds for removing links, and is not a grounds for deleting an article on a notable topic. James500 (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, it wasn't. Thanks for confirming my prediction and doubling down on a pointless accusation. And again thank you for encouraging disruptive behaviour. You have a nice day now. WCMemail 07:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Some odd mix of SYNTH, with laws from the 1600s and as recent as 1978. This is amply covered in the various articles on the British Empire and subsequent colonies/protectorates/what-have-you. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The chapter on the concept of a "British possession" in Roberts-Wray indicates that this topic is not an original synthesis. The article does not mention any legislation from before the 1860s. All of the legislation is about the same concept. The coverage of this topic in other articles is not remotely adequate. In fact, it appears to be virtually non-existent. Even this article is missing a great deal. James500 (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can read Roberts-Wray here [4]. From my brief read of it,(p37), it seems to have been defined in order to unite certain 'colonies', eg Canada post 1867, whereby each province under a central legislative body (ie Ottawa) was not a separate British colony. Ditto for Australia in 1901. India was excluded for reasons I am not sure about. The article says at the end it is an expression rarely used (in 1966) because it could cause offence. My view that the term is not notable enough still stands. Sorry if this is not the place to discuss this but I'm not sure wherelse to go. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For one example, many constitutions and laws were made under British Settlements Acts, by virtue of the fact that the territory in question was a "British possession" that satisfied certain criteria. There is a large body of literature on this topic, and this article is the only one that presently even begins to discuss, or could discuss, this topic of immense constitutional importance. James500 (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt, Roberts-Wray says (p 39) that British India, and subsequently the Dominion of India, were British possessions under the Interpretation Act 1889, and this was not affected under the law of the UK when those countries became republics. India was not excluded from being a British possession merely because it was not a colony. James500 (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger 8 Roger @James500: Roberts-Wray (on page 38, the one page apparently read by Roger 8 Roger) is quoting the definition of the Vice Admiralty Courts Act 1863, which for its purposes excluded the British possessions in India, as they had been called since Pitt's India Act ("An Act for the better Regulation and Management of the Affairs of the East India Company and of the British Possessions in India"). Had Roger 8 Roger enquired further, even on the same page of Roberts-Wray, it might have been made clear that India is expressly and explicitly included in the definition of a "British Colony and Possession" by the Documentary Evidence Act 1868. ("British Colony and Possession" shall for the Purposes of this Act include … such Territories as may for the Time being be vested in Her Majesty by virtue of any Act of Parliament for the Government of India…") This Roberts-Wray states plainly on page 39. Incidentally, J. N. Saxena [5] disagrees with Roberts-Wray on whether India continued to be a British possession (at least in terms of Indian law) - he thought India ceased to be a British possession on the establishment of the republican constitution in January 1950. In the 2018 edition of Cross and Tapper On Evidence, a footnote on page 700 [6] states "Quaere whether this statute still applies to all Commonwealth countries". All colonies are possessions but not all possessions are colonies, at least since the mid-19th century, at which time a legal distinction was increasingly, though never uniformly, observed between different types of British possession. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed this tendency in Wikipedia, whereby people who make a mistake, don't apologise for it but double down. Google snippets is a very dangerous tool to use. Had you been more thorough you'd have found this for example [7]. The fact is British possession is a simple legal term, a definition suitable for something like wiktionary for example. You could summarise the term as:
And that would be it. WCMemail 07:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not use snippet view, I used the scan internet archive. (I also looked at a large number of other books on both the Internet Archive and Google Books). I did not link to the internet archive, because I was frightened that what Roberts-Wray said in his book might be twisted into exactly the sort of freeman on the land style pseudolaw wrong information that I am seeing in the quote from the website you are linking to. (I have explained why that quote is wrong further up this page).
I have noticed there is a tendency on this website to make personal attacks that consist of false claims that someone has done, or failed to do, some act off-wiki. Because it is very easy to get away with making false accusation personal attacks about off-wiki activities that are not recorded by this website. James500 (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You started off this conversation with a silly personal attack and the misleading use of diffs to do so. Its also quite obvious you used snippets. The post hoc fallacy and further bizarre accusations that a law dictionary site is a sovereign citizens resource is just so beyond belief that you've finally shredded any credibility you might once have had. Feel free to have the WP:LASTWORD I can't be bothered to reply further. WCMemail 11:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is perfectly plausible that I am not inclined to encourage non-lawyers to read law books. And, yes, there is a scan of The British Year Book of International Law 1949 in the Internet Archive, I have read the full text of Fawcett's article in that book (and I won't say which scan or hard copy I used), and I am still not going to link to that scan, partly because I don't want to encourage you to read it, and partly because I do not have time to determine if the scan is public domain for non-renewal etc. James500 (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre, you claim to have sources but don't wish to provide any, I note its quite some time since I invited you to provide just one example. Utterly bizarre that you're still doubling down when a simple sorry I goofed and the matter would have been closed. Oh well. WCMemail 12:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did just provide you with this and I did provide you with Roberts-Wray. And I don't want to encourage you to make any edits in relation to this topic at all, because I don't want to see an obscure piece of legislation from the tiny and not particularly important island of St Helena cherrypicked, quoted out of context in a way that is completely misleading, and then misrepresented as the only thing that can be said about this topic, which it is not. Or similar mistakes. James500 (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, another google snippet page, after I pointed out the folly of using snippets. As Roger pointed out, if you look at the archive copy of Roberts-Wray it doesn't back the claim you made for it. And yet another personal attack, very stylish. I always love the ad hominem school of argument but surely it would just be better to stop digging? The fact remains that this term has very little meaning and whilst suitable for a wiktionary entry not for a full-blown article. I note I'm still waiting for one of these myriad of examples you claim prove your case. Just one. WCMemail 13:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Roberts-Wray does indicate that this topic is not an original synthesis, which is the claim that I made for Roberts-Wray. Roger 8 Roger did not claim that this topic is an original synthesis. And now you are misrepresenting Roberts-Wray, and what I said, and what Roger 8 Roger said. It is obvious that you are misrepresenting things on purpose, with intent to obtain gratification from causing annoyance to others. I am no longer prepared to interact with you. Goodbye. James500 (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt, if anyone I am still on speaking terms with is interested, I had another look at the Internet Archive and found a second scan of Fawcett that I am satisfied is CDL (from the Trent University donation), and it confirms that British protectorates, British protected states and UN trust territories were generally not considered to be British possessions, which is what I said it confirmed. For the further avoidance of doubt, some British possessions, such as British India, were not colonies: [8]. James500 (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say he did, that's your strawman. My point from the outset has been that this article by its very nature can't be more than a dictionary term. The term British possession doesn't correspond to WP:GEOLAND as you claimed. The first reference to it in legislation dates from 1889 for example. You'll also find as a vaguely defined term, some authors will included certain types of former British territories such as mandates, others will exclude them and in any case as Roberts-Wray alludes to, the term became obsolete long ago. But this has been educational for me, for the bizarre leaps of logic people will adopt just to avoid saying sorry. Gibbs may see an apology as a sign of weakness, the opposite is true.
It'll also come as a surprise to many that India isn't a former British colony granted independence in 1947...
Oh and I'm deeply, deeply upset over your further personal attack but I'll get over it. And FYI I obtain gratification from the collaborative effort of producing a quality encyclopedia, I don't suffer fools who wish to detract from the quality of the product because their ego got bruised. WCMemail 14:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before I forget, still waiting for example pertinent to WP:GEOLAND, lost count of the number of times I asked. WCMemail 14:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt only, the earliest reference to British possessions in legislation that we have found so far (the Vice Admiralty Courts Act 1863) dates from 1863, not 1889. James500 (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is an important legal concept, distinct from others mentioned. Llajwa (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, if you can show I'm wrong and this is a suitable topic for an article, I'll withdraw the nomination. Please show me how this is suitable for anything beyond a wiktionary entry. WCMemail 07:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation: I participate in many AfDs. In contrast to most of the others, this is an unpleasant discussion.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be a WP:DICDEF of a disused technical term being presented as something far more significant. There are lots of sources, sure - but most of them seem to be primary sources. In particular, large parts of the article seem to be solely or primarily sourced to the text of legislation. I'd further infer that the fact that legislators felt the need to define the term separately in so many different pieces of legislation rather implies that - contrary to the article - it was not necessarily a well-known or well-used term, and it certainly wasn't a defined administrative division of the British Empire as argued above. Kahastok talk 17:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kahastok Firstly, no part of the article is solely or even primarily sourced to the text of legislation. All of the article (excepting some of the quotations of the legislation themselves) is derived from secondary or tertiary sources. While there are conflicting definitions, these mostly date from before the 1889 act, which sought to give a unified definition to the term. Since then, the definition has been quite stable. Secondly, the concept is emphatically not disused. Its application is more limited than it was in the imperial period, but it is still very much an active legal notion. Thirdly, looking at the link you supplied, the example "Article subjects: a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote. The article octopus is primarily about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth" might be mirrored here: "the article British possession is primarily about a legal concept, its history, its application, its use as a basis of other legislation, its territorial jurisdiction, and so forth." Dictionary definitions are about single words and phrases, but this article is about a defined group of countries and territories which share specific political and historical characteristics. An exact equivalent article on Wikipedia is "British Islands", a juridical and legislative division of the (former) British Empire whose meaning also varied through the course of the 19th century and which is now fixed by precisely the same laws as the British possessions (namely, the Interpretation Act 1889 and the Interpretation Act 1978). The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term 'British Possessions' means land under British control. That is its common meaning and is so obvious we do not have to elaborate. When used in legislation it did have to be defined exactly to avoid confusion within a growing and variably empire. That is also obvious in the context of legal documents. That is why most acts of parliament have a section on definitions, and in some cases one act on definitions is created to cover all other acts. This proposed article is all about the legal definition of 'British Possessions'. It is not notable enough IMO. It might crop up as a topic for discussion in a text book on the law or in a judge's case summary, but that is not notable enough. What next? Do we have articles on other legal definitions of common terms? I am aware of a series of legal claims regarding contracts in which a very important point was the difference between something being 'new' or 'as new'. In some contracts and statutes the precise meanings were not defined and they were used interchangeably, or if they were defined, different documents contradicted each other. That is an example of where the meaning of a word or phrase has to be defined, but that is totally separate from its common usage meaning. If this article is to go through I think the title should be changed by adding (in law) at the end, or something similar. And, BTW, about the remarks higher up, I had read Roberts-Wray in full, not just p37 but I had only briefly read it as I indicated. I appreciate the elaboration given. My main concern was to find it somewhere that was more accessible to others, hence the link I gave. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Roger 8 Roger You say "The term 'British Possessions' means land under British control" but that's not immediately obvious and it differs from the definition in law. "Possessions" does not automatically mean "land", "British" does not automatically mean "relating to the government of the UK", and in fact the British possessions are not under the control of the British government anyway, since they are mostly self-governing, or are even independent states. You ask "Do we have articles on other legal definitions of common terms?" and I have already answered "Yes: there is the "British Islands" article. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A well-sourced article about the evolution of an important and widely discussed legal concept. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The topic is notable. It is verifiable, indeed, it is verified. It is far greater in scope than a WP:DICDEF. If it contains WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH then the community is perfectly capable of handing the matter. There are some difficulties with the sourcing. The lead contains WP:CITEKILL whcih requires correction, for example, but as we say often, AfD is not cleanup. I believe the any issues with this are susceptible to salvage by the community, that this passes WP:GNG, is likely to require collegial editing, and is, apart from being notable, both useful and important (which I agree are not Wikipedia policy items). 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of the 60 or so references around half are acts, not RSSs. Most, if not all of the rest are text books or subject specific works. A lot of these sources contain mere snippets where the term 'british possession' is mentioned. Even if the citation bombast is tidied up, this won't change the fact that the term is heavily subject specific. I could not find any examples where the term, as meant here, is used outside the legal community. Because it has a very commonly used non-legal meaning, if this article is to stay I think it should be treated as meeting WP:SNG and have it's title amended accordingly to British Possession (law). BTW, we should not view this article as being well sourced just because there are 60 plus citations. As said, most of those sources don't stack up as RSSs under closer examination. Just because somebody shouts loud enough doesn't mean we should believe what they say. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 23:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an important legal concept, not a niche topic, and has had real-life relevance throughout the commonwealth. For example, the concept affects the family histories of Chinese descent whose descendants born in areas under British administration (as noted in the article).
I have added a small section, with law review citation, dealing with the decision of the Privy Council in Christian v The Queen. British possession status of the Pitcairns was at the core of that decision. The cited article[9] examines the British possession concept at some length and should be considered significant coverage. The Kennedy article also is single-subject and seems worthy of being considered significant coverage for notability.
The article definitely needs a cleanup, but it's been greatly expanded since nomination. As a general comment, the statute-by-statute presentation may have relevant content but it's hard to see based on how it's presented. However, this is not a grounds for deletion.
While I have tried to consider arguments made above, I freely admit to a high degree of TL;DR as a result of the tone of the discussion. I'm focusing on the article as it stands and the Oblivy (talk) 04:54, 2 November 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 Dixon Advisory. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Dixon (Australian investor)[edit]

Alan Dixon (Australian investor) (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 businessperson whose claim to fame is inheriting the business built their more famous father. Neither this position, nor the activities of the business itself during his comparatively short tenure, contribute to the notability of the individual. Sources that refer to "Dixon" doing things are almost invariably referring to the business entity doing those things, not a specific executive. BD2412 T 23:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved and reworded the non-bio information into that page. Regardless of the AfD outcome here, that information is more suitable for the company page anyway. Cheers! --CNMall41 (talk) 03:31, 2 November 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. Consensus is to Draftify article but Draft:Hibox already exists. When I posed the question which draft should remain there was a brief discussion that had an editor argue for keeping the existing draft article in Draft space and deleting this version. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hibox[edit]

Hibox (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)

Seems all very dubious, both the business plan and the "independent" sources which look like press releases or paid-for articles. The only Google News source[16] is a press release, I find no articles about Hibox plus the names of the founder, the COO or the director. The revenue (for a brand-new company) and number of employees are unverifiable, despite the source attached to it. The headquarters are here said to be in Noida, India, but the sources claim headquarters in London, UK... It all doesn't add up, I don't know if it is a scam or just promotion but in any case doesn't belong on Wikipedia (yet). Fram (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every necessary changes are made, please check again n update. Sparsh1220 (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the issues are fixed though, remaining sources like this one are pure press release promo drivel, not reflecting any reality. "the entry of HIBOX opens up possibilities for collaboration between India and neighboring countries, which will boost regional economic integration.", "Its entry into the Indian market symbolizes India's integration into the global supply chain." Uh, it's a company selling mystery boxes. Or not even that, "HIBOX offers an extraordinary affiliate marketing platform that enables users to earn significant income simply by referring their friends, relatives and acquaintances" makes it sound like it is mostly a pyramid scheme. Fram (talk) 12:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Fram, apologies from my side, I'm new at writing articles. I have again tried making necessary changes. Please guide me for the necessary changes, I will do it. Thanks for your support. Sparsh1220 (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Article creator appears to be acting in good faith and is attempting to improve the article. I agree this is not ready for main space but I think this is appropriate for the draft space. There might be foreign language sources with more significant coverage, but I agree that the current sourcing does not meet GNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draftify. All the sources I've seen come across as promotional, based on the company's planned expansion. Think we need to be cautious in allowing this company publicity on Wikipedia at this stage of its operations. What track record is there? WP:TOOSOON#VERIFIABILITY. The infobox seems to say one thing and the text another. The Economic Times of India article is about the concept of mystery box shopping, not this company. The concept might have sufficient coverage in reliable sources to make a decent Wikipedia article, AFAICT this company doesn't. Rupples (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Times of India has also covered Hibox in the recent article stating how Hibox is gaining attention in India. Sparsh1220 (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this discussion as "Draftify" only to find out that Draft:Hibox already exists. So, either that draft is kept and this article is deleted, or I move this article to Draft space and the existing draft gets deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added few more solid references along with the information. Sparsh1220 (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this one. There's an additional sentence in the draft and a couple more references, but they don't change my rationale. Rupples (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Times of India has also covered Hibox in the recent article stating how Hibox is gaining attention in India. Sparsh1220 (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The ToI reference you added talks about Mystery Box shopping in general. The only words about Hibox are quotes from connections, so not independent. Thus, the article doesn't count towards GNG/NCORP. Rupples (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you to check once again as they have also added Hibox's corporate office in the article, so the article is about hibox only. Sparsh1220 (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So ToI have added the very same picture to its article as you have just added to this article (which you state is your own work on Wikicommons and together with the Hibox logo are the only images listed under your username there). Both the Times of India and Economic Times articles are about mystery box shopping — adding a photo of Hibox's HQ doesn't change this. Rupples (talk) 19:42, 6 November 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 05:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Goh[edit]

Suzanne Goh (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 NBIO. Sources in article are primary written by subject, BEFORE showed nothing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV which addresses the topic directly and in-depth. WP:BLPs require strong sourcing  // Timothy :: talk  21:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: For the reasons stated in the nomination. I culled all the ridiculous puffery, and there's now no evidence of notability. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning Keep. (As an aside, I very much dislike the habit of gutting an article and then taking it to AfD looking like a microstub. I'd suggest participants look in the history for a fuller picture of this researcher; some of the material removed seems unproblematic to me. In particular the fact the subject was a Rhodes scholar is confirmed by many Proquest hits.) Just looking at GS, there seem to be some fairly highly cited research papers (287,178,169,97,80), perhaps enough to meet WP:PROF though it's a high-citation field. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proquest finds a short review of her coauthored book Spectacular Bond: Reaching the Child with Autism, though I think it's in the Washington Post blog, not the newspaper (Williams, Mari-Jane. New parenting books focus on food allergies, autism and why there is no perfect mom. The Washington Post (Online) 2013). Also quite a lot of Proquest coverage of her company in the San Diego Business Journal. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was copyvio in the history, which I have now marked for revdel; the majority of the content came from here. These two citations were also in the history and not the current article, so I'm leaving them here so they don't get lost with the revdel. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's a shame. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On Newspapers Extended I found articles mentioning the Rhodes scholarship and a 2023 Boston Globe article mentioning her in connection with symptoms of early onset autism, but not SIGCOV on her. I share @Espresso Addict's disdain for the practice of gutting a page before or in the midst of an AfD; it makes it harder for editors to do research and looks like there's a thumb on the scale. She's also quoted here[17] from her MitoMedical days. I wish I had access to the pre-revdel versions. BBQboffin (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Scopus[18] has her h-index at 13 which is low compared to others, but on her top-cited papers on Google Scholar she's the lead author, so is that a pass for WP:NPROF? BBQboffin (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. She does not pass NPROF and the "average professor test", her citations on GS and Scopus are similar to other PIS (with 3 papers with 100+ citations) at this career stage in her field which is a high citation field. Also, an early career award like the Rhodes generally doesnt contribute to NPROF notability. It seems she also doesnt pass GNG. --hroest 15:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:Prof not yet passed. Looks like commercial puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 6 November 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 per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 05:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go at the 2022 Asian Para Games[edit]

Go at the 2022 Asian Para Games (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 NEVENT. Sources in article are primary results, BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth.  // Timothy :: talk  21:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 1 November 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 05:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kealsie Robles[edit]

Kealsie Robles (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 subject is a former college field hockey player who has appeared for the U.S. national team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 1 November 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 23:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yorubaland Time[edit]

Yorubaland Time (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 am not sure what this article is talking about, doesn't clearly say what "Yorubaland Time" is. Sources do not explain that either. Looks like something that is non-existent. Generally doesn't have a WP:SIGCOV, sounds more like an WP:OR. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I searched Google Scholar for the words yoruba + time and turned up 6 potential refs which I've added to a temporary "See also" section. It seems this is a legitimate topic for philosophers and ethnographers. That doesn't mean the academic topic means much to modern day Yorubas. I also agree with Vanderwaalforces this article looks sketchy; we'll see how well it matches these new, more relevant refs.

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think think the topic is relevant and notable enough as per the sources provided. Although, I will suggest it be further worked on to show better clarity.

--Mevoelo (talk • contribs • global count) 12:57, 2 November 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. Consensus rejects this as hoax with questionable sources. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dernatinus[edit]

Dernatinus (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 whole article smells like a hoax. Infobox claims that Dernatinus lived 50 BC – 90 AD, which is clearly impossible. Claim of a North African travelling to the Americas in the first century is WP:FRINGE at best. A figure born 50 BC (or even one who died c.90 AD) would be one of the earliest written attestations of Jesus and yet Google scholar turns up precisely zero results for Dernatinus. Googling turns up very littleat all for me, and none of the results seem reliable. The book illustrated in the infobox does not seem to exist on worldcat or Amazon or Google books. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Looks like a fringe POV push at best. R Prazeres (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Philosophy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Blatant hoax.★Trekker (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's definitely a hoax, although I'm not sure if it's blatant or merely obvious. All the sources are blogs, but surprisingly seem to predate the creation of the article by quite a bit, so the author may be more super credulous than deliberately deceptive. Might still be G3able. Has anyone tried? Folly Mox (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I went straight to afd because g3 requires a hoax be "blatant and obvious" which is a pretty high bar and I wasn't sure this met it. Given that nobody has yet made a case to keep the article, I assume an admin could still decide to delete under G3 if they think it does Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The content is to extraordinary to be credible. I checked several of the links cited, most of which were to non-English websites, which in fact said little and cited no primary source. The one that might have led to a primary source required a login that I could not get through. Another link (in English) referred to a "novel": if that is not a mistranslation, it implies a work of fiction. A journey to America at that period reminds me of the Book of Mormon, which I regard as fiction though the LDS church will disagree. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bogus. Non-notable.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:55, 6 November 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close close explanation: There's been 23 more references added, a number of which are considered reliable sources (WP:HEY). Based on the depth of coverage in the sources, and the number and quality of sources present, there's enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Ovens[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jill Ovens (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. Google search gives only party website. Only RS, non-primary source, non-blog source, non-passing source, and non-personal political publication (response to a public consultation/parties she is or was a member of), coverage is [19]. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC

Note: I'm not sure how the "find sources" links went wrong but I've fixed them. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There is fairly sustained but low level coverage of her in the Google News hits. Most of it dates to her time as a more mainstream political figure, before the weird anti-trans stuff kicked off. If kept, I recommend keeping a very close eye on the article in the run up to the by-election to make sure that the article is not used either to promote or attack her. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that the subject of the article posted this about her article.
    Additionally the lowest of low level coverage I saw was minimal and incidental with her being an also part of the articles, like being quoted as part of a mass of quoted people, or being in a list of also ran fringe candidates. If the article can be improved to meet GNG then fine I will withdraw the nomination but I don't se how it gets over the line of GNG. most of the articles I find are blogs, the union/political party she was/is a member of, and press release repost sites (Scoop for example). Which does not get anywhere near GNG. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not take any notice of what she thinks of the article or of Wikipedia. She is either notable or she isn't. Our content is either neutral and accurate or it isn't. Her opinions don't matter here. It is different when a fairly private person, who has been dragged into the limelight, requests not to have an article about themself. That is is something we might look favourably on if the notability is low enough but she is the leader of a political party so that's not the case here. DanielRigal (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply being a leader of a political party does not confer automatic notability, if that were the case they there would be an endless number of nobodies who set up protest parties or vanity parties who would be 'notable'. The party itself may be notable, but that has no bearing on if the party officials are notable at this low level of single issue fringe party on the extreme-extremities of the spectrum where the Overton Window is on a different planet. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for not being clear. That wasn't my argument. As you say, the requirement to actually demonstrate notability remains. My point was that anybody who puts themselves forward as a public figure can't moan if they get a Wikipedia article, and they don't like it, in the same way that a more private person might sometimes be justified in doing. All I was saying is that we don't need to take any notice of her complaints about the article (beyond checking that any disputed factual claims are correct, of course). DanielRigal (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @PicturePerfect666 I just followed that link and "Whoops, that page is gone". I don't suppose there's an archived version somewhere? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, this [20] works atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is an archived version of the page PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - adequate coverage for the biography of a notable perennial candidate, and one-time president and [co-]leader of a significant national party (measuring significance by the fact they elected multiple candidates in multiple elections, though none under her leadership). The article will be strengthened if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's Rights Party results in a merge, which seems at least possible at this point. I at least think this discussion is premature while the other discussion is ongoing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are these sources to convey that the candidate gets over GNG threshold. You are just saying the person is a notable perennial candidate. The sources don't seem to back that. Also being a "one-time president and [co-]leader of a significant national party" that does not convey automatic notability. The party may be notable but party officials are not automatically notable. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector: Merging that here would normally have no effect on the notability of this topic, why do you say that it would strengthen the notability argument? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not notability, necessarily. I meant that these two topics are pretty closely intertwined, and covering them broadly in one place would make more sense than separate narrow coverage. It's pretty common for us to cover a politician's vanity or single-issue ventures within their biographies instead of in separate articles. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So if there's no impact on the notability either way why would we want to postpone this discussion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because they are separate discussions which each impact the outcome of the other. The party AFD was at the time leaning quite strongly towards merging the content into this article, which would be moot if consensus was that Ovens shouldn't have a bio in the first place. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How would the outcome of that discussion impact this one? Such a merge would be moot, but thats on those arguing to merge two non-notable pages together without establishing that one of them is notable not on anyone else. Thats just irresponsible. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep - Unlike the party, the person does produce mentions from other people when you google it. I don't think that the sources currently in the article reaches GNG or is at most quite borderline, and there are definitely some primary sources that need cleaning up, but IMO we should err on the side of inclusion. Also agree with Ivanvector that this should wait until the party AfD finishes. I would advocate no prejudice to reopening afterwards however. Fermiboson (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking vote after reviewing some of the comments below. Fermiboson (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should inclusion be erred on? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When it comes to BLPs we've always erred on the side of exclusion (both when it comes to content and when it comes to articles), why should this case be different? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There’s enough there to achieve GNG. She suffers from the fact that her most notable period as co-leader of the Alliance is too long ago for any print media other than The New Zealand Herald still being online. Here is a source that shows how long she’s been around. When I am back at a laptop I shall have a more in-depth look. Schwede66 13:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I look forward to seeing the article expanded. At the moment it is just a lot of 'she is notable being said' yet I cannot see how she gets over the threshold. A minor politicial party leader a leader of a trade union, which is not notable in and of itself to be on Wikipedia, never been elected to any office despite being the most nuisance of perennial candidates and now shouting from the fringes with a vanity party to push bigotry. I know hundreds of similar people who do not get on wikipedia for doing that. She has to actually have genuine notability to be on Wikipedia. I look forward to the expansions. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dr Christopher Poor (Q123356622), who is a sociologist at the University of Auckland, wrote his dissertation at the New School in New York about the Alliance. The dissertation covers the period from September 11 attacks in 2001 to the 2005 party conference in Christchurch where Jill Ovens and Paul Piesse received the top two list spots (page 184). As that period captures the time that Ovens was co-leader of the Alliance, there is quite a bit about her in that thesis. Schwede66 03:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dissertations are borderline sources which generally do not count towards notability... Its nice that it exists and its probably borderline usable, but it doesn't do much for us here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominators note - Can the people who have !voted to keep please do better than the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - can there please be some significant evidence to back up the claims this person is actually notable. Currently, it all seems to be the opinion that a few blogs and one mention reliable sources and some passing mentions and her self-promotion seem to get her to be notable. If that were the case Wikipedia would have a bar so low anyone, literally anyone who ever got in a newspaper and wrote their opinion on the internet would be included on Wikipedia. This is not a ballot for voting as to if the person is notable in the opinion of editors...it is a discussion on if the individual is notable enough to remain on Wikipedia. So far GNG is not being passed and no one has disputed that so far. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I may have spent a little too much time on this since I saw this on VPP earlier today, but I believe that the subject fails, by a significant margin, the basic criteria for the notability of biographical topics (WP:BASIC) and GNG. Additionally, there does not appear to be evidence in reliable sources for any of the additional criteria (ANYBIO, NPOL, AUTHOR, etc). The routineness of coverage of failed political candidates for their candidacy is considered, but not a substantial factor. I base my analysis primarily on, but not limited to, the following sources: Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

NB: Also, I am aware that ProQuest is currently not available via TWL due to T350303, but there's not really much I can do about that. I guess I can send the full text through via email if anyone actually wants to read those few that are only accessible through there. Resolved pretty much immediately, kudos to the WMF team.

While there is actually a fair bit of Fairfax/Stuff from the early 2000s available on their website, it is true that such content is not as comprehensive than might be obtained from other databases or archives. However, the coverage from that time period is not qualitatively different from what is available online. For example,

Jonathan Milne's November 2001 "Deadlock in caucus forces concession out of Anderton" in The Dominion (ProQuest item 337974093) does say something about Ovens, but only Alliance council representative Jill Ovens is understood to have abstained from endorsing the amended strategic direction.

Similarly, Milne, Dominion, "McCarten to take on Alliance MPs", same month, 315348629 only says about Ovens It will be the first time in nearly two weeks that the two men have met in person, and the meeting is critical to the future of the Alliance and to the Coalition Government. Mr McCarten will have the moral support of Alliance council observers Jill Ovens and Vernon Tile.

I think the one article that might have a prima facie case at contributing to BASIC notability would be Vernon Small's August 2006 "Labour insiders branded 'dogs'" 338230026 in The Dominion Post, which does have some details, but is perhaps overly "breaking news" and scandal mongering A LEADING unionist has lashed out at Labour Party insiders, calling them "dogs" -- despite pledging to join the party during her campaign for a top union position. In an e-mail leaked to The Dominion Post, Jill Ovens, who is a former Alliance Party president, suggested she would join Labour because Labour MP Darien Fenton had told members of the Service and Food Workers Union that links to the party were crucial to their pay rises. "We have to distinguish between Labour Party apparatchiks (who are dogs) and ordinary working people who believe in Labour," Ms Ovens wrote.

In Christopher J Poor's 2005 PhD dissertation "Accountability of political party elites: Intra-party democratization in the New Zealand Alliance" 305345885 the subject is mentioned some 18 times! (well, 16. 2 of them were apparently for "Bovens" instead) But this is a 173 page document for which the only significant content on the subject is probably Similarly, the combativeness of the activists is crucial to the outcome of accountability claims against leaders. Jill Ovens was no doubt emboldened by her experience as a union organizer but networks clearly increased the combativeness of the anti-war and regional activists due to ongoing positive feedback from members.

An uncredited (though presumably written by McLeod) November 2007 opinion piece in the Rotorua Daily Post, also published twice on other 1 2 in 2009 has: She is Jill Ovens, Food and Service Workers Union northern secretary. Moments before trouble began she'd marched into the crowd and begun haranguing in the shrill, hectoring style some women have that sets your teeth on edge. The crowd wasn't there to be lectured, but the woman plainly couldn't shut up. What developed was like one of those nightmare family get-togethers where Dad slugs his eldest son, and the uncles knock over the dinner table, settling old scores with their fists and ruining all Mum's hard work in the kitchen. Besides the fact that it's opinion piece, there really isn't actually much about the subject, even though it is probably one of the longest paragraphs written on her at 90 words.

Vernon Small's (December 2014) opinion piece also published under in Manawatu Standard, and under different titles in The Press, Dominion Post and Waikato Times but with the same Starting text of "Andrew Little's call for Labour to redefine what it means by working people" and substantially similar content, has: The Auckland breakfast audience - including union activists such as Jill Ovens, John Tamihere from Labour's former unofficial "blokes club", and Sky TV chief executive John Fellet - hardly stormed the podium. Much of the remaining coverage is at this level, or less.

Among others reviewed, but I haven't written about in detail yet: 1985 Letter to the editor, WSJ, ProQuest 397932096, not really sufficent to positively identify as written by the subject, wouldn't contribute even if it were. 1987 interview, The Press, National Library of New Zeland, same caveat. Two further letters, "Invasion, not a conflict" (ProQuest 337990447) about Iraq and "The rights of women" about the pay gap (ProQuest 337974093) both in Dominion Post, latter has an editors note which makes identification easier. Couple of mentions and quotes in relation to being ASTE acting president/president in 1999/2000, but again, nothing beyond "<job>, <name>, <quote>". Another letter in Dec 2004 314002427 to the Sunday Star-Times about how the Alliance party is totally not dying. I'm really too tired to keep going now, so this is me signing off for the day.

Also, PicturePerfect666, while I understand the impulse, there really is no need to respond to every !vote that you disagree with. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but they posed valid points worth replying to. It was not just a response for the sake of it. There must be some discussion here and not unchallenged voting. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, PicturePerfect666, I agree with Alpha3031, and I am the kind of person who might look at this thing and decide how to close it, and I am telling you that the more you respond, the less likely it is that your responses will be taken seriously. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then that is more on you than on me and shows the lack of objectivity you bring to the closing of a discussion as you have clearly shown (with the above contribution) you personalise a discussion. An AfD is supposed to be a discussion, not a series of unchallenged vote positions. Who knows after discussion it could be one changes their mind, or provides information that I change my mind. This is no place to try and limit discussion, as the purpose is to build the best encyclopaedia not win-lose or personalise things. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Left a note on talk page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And these that she is referred to in:
All-in-all, I think that if her page was fleshed out with some of her academic work (she did edit a journal), it creates picture of someone who has had a significant impact on the industrial relations of the country. Nauseous Man (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The links above are just to stuff she has published. Publishing stuff counts for nothing on Wikipedia. What counts is how much influence her work has had on others and the GS link above shows this to be close to zero. There is not the slightest chance of passing WP:Prof. WP:GNG is not satisfied either as the mentions are in passing with nothing in-depth. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
      • Nauseous Man, Xxanthippe is correct: coverage needs to be about the person, not by the person. If you can start showing stuff where she is cited, that's a different thing, but if Xxanthippe is correct about the Google Scholar search, that may be a vain effort. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have been expanding this article and think there is enough there to achieve GNG. There is lots of information written about her activities in the union movement over many years now added to the article (and more to come) all with reliable secondary sources. Kiwichris (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are passing mentions. There is nothing in-depth. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
That's not true, regardless remember that for GNG the person does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Articles about events that also detail a person's activities regarding them are perfectly fine. Kiwichris (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, I've taken a look at some of the sources you've added (e.g. way we were, tech subjects at risk) but there were a fair number of them. Are you able to clarify which ones you intend to be considered towards BASIC/GNG? Not being the main topic is fine, but WP:SIGCOV still says directly and in detail in the sentence before that. More importantly, is there anything that isn't composed of quotes for the subject, "she said X, she said Y, she said Z," etc? That kind of coverage is perfectly fine for filling an article out, subject to WP:PRIMARY, but it isn't the type of thing that would support a claim for BASIC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This is not a response to the reply above, I'm leaving my vote here because this AfD is malformed. In my google search I did find some sources that do seem to give some importance to her (ref, ref). That, along with the fact that Women's Rights Party will probably end up merged to this page, is enough to convince me that she is a marginally notable person with a significant chance of receiving more coverage in the near future and that this article should be kept. I would be willing to merge this article to MERAS (the organization she represented for a while), but since it doesn't exist I think we can leave everything here. SparklyNights 22:12, 8 November 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 snow keep‎. Clear consensus that this is an appropriate topic for an independent article. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving[edit]

Thanksgiving (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)

Synthesis and original research; nothing here that couldn't go in harvest festival Orange Mike | Talk 20:42, 1 November 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. Daniel (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Not A Theatre Company[edit]

AfDs for this article:
This Is Not A Theatre Company (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)

Promotional article requested for recreation by an editor with a clear COI following soft-deletion; no further improvements to establish the subject's notability have been made since restoration. N.b. the article's history also includes extensive contributions by editors with clear conflicts of interest. signed, Rosguill talk 20:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caspian Week[edit]

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

this article is nearly entirely uncited (3 of the 4 sections of actualy content), and just acts as a collection of external links to a youtube channel, and a reference of some of the dates hosted for events. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish) 18:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All contents are cited properly. Youtube links are videos for each panel sessions, they are not citations. They are under external links for easy guide whoever wants to find specific session of Caspian Week. Esqeudero (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: organization is notable. It was regional discussion division of World Economic Forum in Davos. Serdaray85 (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: article is improved in terms of content and references. Esqeudero (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Organization isn’t very notable, and most sources cited are promotional. HarukaAmaranth 春香 01:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The organization in question does not appear to meet Wikipedia's stringent notability standards, which require significant coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources. The majority of references provided are promotional in nature, originating from the organization itself or press releases, which are primary sources that do not contribute to establishing notability. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:05, 7 November 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. Sources identified and apparently persuasive. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim (singer)[edit]

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

Creator contested PROD. Previously created at Muslim (rapper), moved to draft and also contested. Subject doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO, at least, not yet. No reliable source that gives WP:SIGCOV. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and above. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Name is too common to find anything useful; Sinead O'Connor was Muslim apparently, which I did not know. Most hits are on Muslim singers, nothing for this fellow Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Page does not meet notability guidelines for musicians. HarukaAmaranth 春香 20:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page does not seem important enough to warrant its own page and it does not meet musician notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.162.190 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it lacks of content and information. Also, not notable. There is almost no any inline references, 4 are given where 3 are not existing website. Serdaray85 (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep andMove to Muslim (rapper) Incredibly disappointing AfD. Has anyone actually bothered with a simple Google search? Muslim is the equivalent of Morocco's Jay Z or 50 Cent. He is one of the most prominent and influential representatives of rap in Morocco, Africa, and the Arab world. While I get that it's challenging when most sources are in foreign languages, there's plenty of substantial, independent coverage in reliable sources across multiple languages that took me less than a minute to find. Passes #1, #7, #8, and #11 in my opinion.
Pinging @Vanderwaalforces:, @Theroadislong:, @Oaktree b:, @Estar8806:, @HarukaAmaranth:, @Serdaray85:. Mooonswimmer 18:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did look in Fr and EN Google. The Forbes contributor piece is out, the youtube stuff is out. I'll have to review the rest later. You might be on to something. Oaktree b (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the sheer !votes here may point to a consensus to delete, Moonswimmer's contribution on 30 October deserves the opportunity to be further reviewed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion such as Spanish national newspaper articles about him, an academic journal, and others show when combined a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my !vote to Keep. Sources provided by Moonswimmer and those reference by Atlantic306 would pass GNG and SIGCOV. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mooonswimmer Great job, can you now update the article based on this. As I am inclined to !vote Keep. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried my best to expand the article and include more sources. Mooonswimmer 20:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fairly substantial amount of news coverage demonstrated above. AryKun (talk) 13:02, 4 November 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)‎ GreenC 15:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loybas Hill, California[edit]

Loybas Hill, California (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)

PROD declined. From what I could find this was never a populated place, just a riverboat stop in the 1800s. The site was recently mentioned as one of several places to be re-named, but otherwise there is nothing about this site that is at all notable: No population, no post office, nothing that satisfies WP:GEOLAND. Just a hill where boats used to stop. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not satisfy of GNG or GEOLAND. Any potential usable content could fit in the article on the relevant county. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it notable under the former name Squaw Hill which was changed based on the derogatory nature of the word Squaw. Notable for the controversy. Squaw Hill near Corning renamed Loybas Hill, San Francisco Chronicle Two California towns were just renamed by the federal government because of this harmful word, Corning Observer Squaw Hill near Corning renamed Loybas Hill. Historically we can go back further by searching the old name. From 1920 - Bridge Plans Approved by Department, Squaw Hill News. In 1934 a woman wrote a letter to the editor stating that when she moved there in 1914 it was called "River View", so that may lead to more RS. Ping @Estar8806: to the previous delete ivoter. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good catch on the former name. I'll strike my above !vote. Would say this article could use a bit of incubation, so I would prefer draftify over keep, but am not opposed to the latter. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate the effort you put into finding those sources. All of those slipped past me. Regardless, I stand by my nomination: Just having an offensive name changed does not make a site notable, unless it sets a precedent or model for future name-changes such that it gets commented on in secondary RS. This case doesn't meet that bar; it was one of a cluster of sites renamed all at once, reported on all at once in an article that talks about inclusivity in place names but says almost nothing about any of the places. Beyond that, the bridge plans article is a passing mention, the letter to the editor is primary and probably not RS, and the "Squaw Hill News" column is little more than gossip that demonstrates the place existed but says nothing about it. If all we can say is that a place existed and had a church, and had its name changed...I don't see what service we're providing. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the WP:BEFORE conducted by Lightburst. Chetsford (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The coverage is on the weak side, but the Corning Observer coverage seems pretty substantial. The cvoerage really needs to be about the location, not just brief mentions, but the Corning Observer article at least seems to rise to that level. FOARP (talk) 08:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: coverage is satisfactory. Additionally & worth pursuing:https://www.calif-tech.com/corning/history/squawhill.html, which gives lots of info that would be great leads, incl being site of first permanent ferry crossing. Djflem (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm not seeing evidence that this is anything but a locale based on the name of the actual hill (so labelled on some topos). Mangoe (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand your rationale. Could say the same for Capitol Hill, which is also a locale based on the name of an actual hill so labeled on some topos. -- GreenC 01:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Mangoe There is so much additional coverage (beyond what is cited above) that it will take some time to add it all in to the article, which has already expanded quite a bit. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • what? Djflem (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Never mind. I would agree this is a notable place. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've often said, the Arcadia Publishing books are good pointers to look to first, as they are written by local historians and almost always give a broad outline of what the local history is, and this is the case here. Smith 2016 has the Moon School, the Squaw Hill landing, the Squaw Hill ferry, and William Moon's house; and would have immediately indicated that there's history here. The article now has these, of course. Such an overview source plus detail sources is — evidently! — enough for constructing an article. Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Smith, Josie (2016). Tehama County. Images of America. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9781439658666.
  • Keep clearly meets notability guidelines; TY to improvers jengod (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Although this AfD nomination was a misfire, nominator raised good questions and every single participant in this discussion added something. (Even Mangoe's earlier comment suddenly made sense to me when I stumbled on "the other Squaw Hill" in Riverside County.) Have tried to address all concerns in expanding the article, clarifying population, purpose of the riverboat landings, and background on phone company (though indeed it seems there is/was no post office). Added lots of sources including the Arcadia Publishing book and many others not listed above, and moved the Place Names pamphlet down to "Further reading" and replaced with another source. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: Thanks. Is there a hook in there? If so I have a QPQ to donate. Lightburst (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst Too late. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lightburst and A.B. -- seems like a good example of sources being found and verified. jp×g🗯️ 09:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I neglected to mention: plus an absolutely rock-the-socks-off amazing expansion from @Cielquiparle:. jp×g🗯️ 09:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article went from [21] to what it is now. I'm glad someone could rescue it. Dream Focus 23:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The coverage of the community itself that is presently included in the article's references appears to meet WP:GNG, and it's reasonably detailed enough that upmerging it to another article on a geographical entity isn't necessary from a WP:NOPAGE perspective. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WeirdNAnnoyed: Won't you please withdraw the nomination? Lightburst (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn Everyone has done a very good job of making this article an article, not the low-effort sub-stub it once was. Thanks, all. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:36, 8 November 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

El Camino, California[edit]

El Camino, California (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)

DePRODded because of 2 references, but one of these is just GNIS and the other a document of place name origins. All I can find is that this was once a ranch, not an "unincorporated community". Fails WP:GEOLAND and is confusing clutter because there are lots of places and roads in California named El Camino. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From 1935 there is El Camino Community Church. More research is probably needed because there is also this article from 1936. Lightburst (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources mentioned above are ROUTINE at best. Based on Google Maps it is a community with about 30 people within a square mile. It's not even mentioned in the list of unincorporated communities on Tehama County, California. There is nothing I can find on this tiny community. Finally El Camino, California will always route me to "El Camino Real." Conyo14 (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's definitely enough in the sources here for an article. Because you didn't read the history already cited in the article at the time of nomination, you've all missed the ranch. Uncle G (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as improved. TY Uncle G jengod (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncle G - I don't have time to review the newer sources, but Tehama County Place Names is a self-published work put together by two authors with no obvious expertise as historians with the help of local school-students. I don't wish to be unkind to the great kids at Red Bluff Union High School and their teach Mr. Osbourne who I'm sure did a great job at their class-project for US history, but we need better sourcing than that for an article - at the very least it needs to be published by an established publishing-house with a record of fact-checking and ideally authored by professional historians. FOARP (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have bad news for you: that's how much such history is done. Even the Wikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data/Ramsay Place-Name Card Collection is based upon master's students doing first-hand interviews and collecting anecdotes. But again, whilst you might have read the first page at least, and missed the other acknowledgements to focus excessively on one, reaching a quite distorted conclusion, again the issue is not reading the source. The reason to credit these people as reliable is that, in the entries and in a big appendix at the end, they cite their sources. There are 9 pages of source citations, and lots of little cross-references in many of the entries. Read the actual source, not going no further than the title, not solely only one of the acknowledgements on the acknowledgements page, but the actual thing. The "Finnell" entry cites the 3 sources that it is based upon, and there's not a class project nor a high school student amongst them. Uncle G (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not cite the sources in the source then? Conyo14 (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because they are the sources that the people who did the historical research consulted. Ironically, it's the very thing that we are not really in the business of doing, reading maps and scouring old records. That's actually the worst way to make articles about places, and why I always look for history books and toponymic research that is done and published. I consulted what they then wrote, and my source is what they published, not my own interpretations of primary source documents. They did the research with the primary sources, we make a tertiary source based off their secondary source, the histories written by the people who have done the historical research, which is the case here. Uncle G (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, but if it was done by high school students as FOARP pounted out, then it's not technically reliable. Conyo14 (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • It wasn't done by high school students, and Osbourne isn't the author. FOARP read one part of the acknowledgements page and missed everything else, starting with (at minimum) the other acknowledgements, and including all of the referencing and sourcing that the authors gave. You really should do everyone the courtesy of fully reading the source that was in the article to start with. If anyone other than me had, we probably wouldn't be here at all. Someone would have seen the Finnell Ranch, realized that there was history here, and that it isn't obtained by either your method of looking at Google Maps or by just searching for "El Camino". Find the history books! My usual procedure is to look for an Arcadia Publishing one. Ironically, I haven't even touched one yet, because there was a source that had collected the history right there. (Once again, we had shamefully just sourced things to GNIS and left a it at yet more "unincorporated community" rubbish for 5 years.) Uncle G (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Uncle G - I did read the source. Please dial down the personal attacks.

                I note you haven't addressed the substance of the issue here: this is a self-published source by people who are not professional historians which was put together with the help of high school students. It doesn't matter that they cite sources - this book is not those sources, and without proper fact checking we cannot simply take their word for it that what is written in this book (which, again, is self published). We cannot rely on self-published local histories to sustain notability. FOARP (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

                • Nothing above says anything about you personally, but it is very clear what you did, since the acknowledgements page simply thanks people, including the "staff of the Tehama County Assessor’s Office", which doesn't make as good a way of dismissing the authorship of the article as mischaracterising it as "the great kids at Red Bluff Union High School and their teach Mr. Osbourne", does it?

                  In fact the authors were the very first thing in the citation, and if you had bothered at all to just read the author from the citation and check who Donald Lindsay Hislop was, as I did, you would have found that xe was a professional historian, with an M.A. in history who graduated from Chico State, was a historian for his whole life, and whose published historical articles go back to the 1970s. Similarly, Ben Hughes has an M.A. and is a historian. They are (or were, since Hislop died a decade ago) both associated with the Tehama County Genealogical & Historical Society, which actually publishes a currently accessible edition of this work to this day.

                  Instead you went with patronizing the schoolteacher and xyr class route.

                  Uncle G (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

                  • An MA does not make one a "profession historian", and no source credits either Hislop or Hughes as such. YourThe original citation credited the Tehama Department of Education, but they did not publish this book. Equally the local historical society did not publish this book. In both cases they merely host/hosted the book on their website - I might as well list Google as the publisher of material on Google Books.

                    Making false accusations is a form of personal attack - I never said anywhere that the book was authored by high-school students, only that they contributed to it (which is evidently true). Please dial it down. FOARP (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

                    • On the contrary, being employed as a historian all of his life apparently, indeed does make one a professional historian. And yes, the historical society is publishing that text. The other history works on its WWW site it merely sells copies of; it isn't publishing the actual works themselves. Oh, and it wasn't my citation at all; another misrepresentation. Uncle G (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                      He was a high-school teacher. That is not "being employed as a historian all of his life".
                      "yes, the historical society is publishing that text" - Not in the sense that they take responsibility for and check its content in the way a publishing house does. They are merely hosting it on their website in the same way any web-host does. We might as well credit Internet Archive as "publisher" if that is the standard being applied, as they host the version currently used in the article.
                      "it wasn't my citation at all" - Apologies, happy to correct the record on this. FOARP (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You just admitted to doing WP:OR on the authors. You do realize that this is not how we verify information. Conyo14 (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You are misunderstanding what original research is. If I were writing an article on Donald Lindsay Hislop, then performing primary research on the subject would be original research. But this is checking out who an author is, what xyr credentials in the field are, a necessary part of determining the reliability of a source. In this case the first one is being employed as a historian, apparently all of his life, and has a record of published works cited by other historians making clear that he is a recognized historian. And both have an advanced degree in the field. Ironically, I didn't even do original research to achieve that. I just read his obituary, which is actually a source. No obit for Ben Hughes, but there's a note about him doing historical research for xem in another author's book. Uncle G (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                      • That. Is. Original. Research. If you are searching up the credentials of a historian to justify a self-published source, that is original research. Your source (yes yours) cannot count towards GNG. Take it up with Perennial Sources if you feel that strongly. Conyo14 (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                        • No, it's investigating the reliability of a source. Good grief! Read Project:Reliable sources, for pity's sake! It mentions expertise over and over. You find out who the authors are, and what their expertise in the subject is. So I went and found out who Donald Lindsay Hislop M.A. was, and whether he was just some random person or an established and recognized expert in the history of Tacoma County, which he is — was. And it didn't involve one whit of primary research. No legwork on my part required. His obituary says he was. "Don was a historian". "His education amassed to a Masters in History". Uncle G (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history book readers will discover that we haven't even plumbed the depths of this place yet. Before it was the Finnell Ranch, it was the Rancho de Los Saucos, and there's scope for expansion on that. Putting "El Camino" into Google, Maps or otherwise, is not the way to check out this subject. Uncle G (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Uncle G - we have articles on all Spanish-Mexican land grants in CA - Rancho de Los Saucos is probably Rancho Saucos, y? I'll see if I can find the diseño or a plat map from after it was patented. jengod (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd be open to a merge target there. Conyo14 (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is what I get for looking for the name that's in the books: Rancho de Los Saucos. That's what the Stanford University Press book by Hoover, Rensch, and Rensch calls it. Thomes is right, per them, and they from that link right through El Camino Colony to (as of, presumably, 1932) Elder Creek Ranch. If its "of the" in English, Wikipedia editors, it's "de los"! Uncle G (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per this Google Earth image - a clump of at most 10-15 homes +outbuildings. No town. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Uncle G, please back off FOARP. Let's just talk about the article.

      --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • As I've already pointed out, we are not only talking about the article, we are even talking about one of the sources initially cited in the article, and how its authorship is being wholly misrepresented over and over in now four AFD discussions. Let's now talk about how your evaluation of this subject is to look at Google Earth and nothing else. Is that evaluation of the sources available, their provenances and depths? At least FOARP is talking about a source, even if xe keeps misrepresenting it as a "class project" and put together by high school students. And that's not even the sole source in this article by a long chalk at this point (since we now have the SUP revised version of the Rensch history, the Smith history, and a whole bunch of other things). Uncle G (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I just know what I see. Call it valid, call it invalid. Your call. I know what I see:
        • A place with nothing there based on Google Earth. Nothing. Nada. You can look for yourself.
        • Someone unfriendly to people who disagree with him.
          • I'm not going to get into all the official Wikipedia "WPs": WP:CIVIL, WP:ATTACK, WP:HARASS, etc., etc.
          • I'm just going to stick to "unfriendly". Your dealings with FOARP just make things unpleasant for everybody, whether we agree with you or not.
          • I don't understand why you feel the need to be this way. It's just a Wikipedia article.
        --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maps and images are not RS for establishing notability, Nor are they valid
    for discrediting it. Works both ways. Djflem (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Djflem, maps are not reliable sources for geographic locations; they sometimes contain errors. But Google Earth satellite photos are a different; whether or not they are "official" for WP:GEO, they are a useful reality check. How do you explain the existence of a town if you can't see it? Likewise, "driving" Highway 99W using Google Streetview doesn't show more than a few homes, either. No businesses.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Djflem (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While this is a populated place that was unincorporated and thus never got the per se notability that legal recognition would have given to it, it can still be considered notable (per WP:GEOLAND) if this passes the WP:GNG. And, upon examining the references that are currently present in the article (and also the newspaper links provided in this discussion and on the article's talk page), it looks very well like this community has been covered significantly by multiple independent reliable sources. As such, this passes the GNG, and it satisfies the notability guidelines on that basis. In addition, the article is now reasonably detailed (c.f. WP:HEY), and I think that upmerging this to some other geographical entity would not be required in light of WP:NOPAGE. For these reasons, I support keeping the page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it satisfies the "populated, legally recognized places" criteria of WP:GEOLAND. El Camino Irrigation District currently has special district status with governing board members on the November ballot during local elections; it has had legal recognition as an irrigation district since 1921 and as a political subdivision under California law since 1926. In addition, per WP:HEY, the article has been expanded to include information about the history of the community from the early 20th century to the present day. More work could be done to upgrade sources (though I went through and tried to minimize reliance on the 2007 pamphlet) and explain some of the detail, but that can be done through the normal course of editing. Props to all who contributed to the detective work. Sure, a lot of things in California have "El Camino" in the name, but that's what disambiguation is for, and explaining the various uses is yet another way that Wikipedia can contribute to human knowledge. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cielquiparle, irrigation districts in California cover wide areas, usually at least one county and often multiple counties -- that's typically 1000 to 5000 sq. km. They are not owned or controlled by any local towns or cities. El Camino Irrigation District is based in Gerber, California. The irrigation district and the reputed community have no connection.
    Lots of things across California are named El Camino; our El Camino disambiguation page lists 3 blue-linked ones in 3 different parts of the state. The phrase "El Camino" just means "the road" and dozens of California towns have arterial roads named "El Camino". There's also the historic El Camino Real.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, if it were "just land" inside of the borders of the irrigation district, it wouldn't necessarily be a "place". On the other hand, as the article shows, it is also a populated rural community that has had an evolving identity as a place over the course of history – as Finnell/Finnell Ranch, El Camino Colony, El Camino Irrigation District, etc. – with its own grange hall, church, 4-H club, and fire station. Not to mention the fact that this particular irrigation district has historically been a lightning rod for controversy over time from a finance and governance point of view, and on its own might qualify for WP:GNG based on regional media coverage. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:46, 8 November 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Schreiner[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH. Let'srun (talk) 18:55, 1 November 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 05:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incognia[edit]

Incognia (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 are company brochure and manuals and routine business and funding news. scope_creepTalk 16:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the editor who created the article edited it only a few days before this debate started, a "soft delete" feels like not the right option as we may be back here in a week or two anyways. Relisting to establish further consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I cannot find any sources that meet NCORP either. Sources in ProQuest were largely press releases. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:20, 2 November 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 Gmina Pieniężno. Liz Read! Talk! 00:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pieniężno Drugie[edit]

Pieniężno Drugie (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)

Mass-created article by Kotbot, a bot operated by retired user Kotniski.

As it says on the PL Wiki article, this is an "unofficial settlement" (nieoficjalna osada). This is not listed on the TERYT database (despite the TERYT database being listed as the source...). A SIMC ID (0155100) is included on the PL Wiki page, but the TERYT database does not include a listing for this SIMC ID. If there were ever a listing for this place on TERYT, it has been removed for some reason - possibly because it was an error? There isn't any place called Pieniężno Drugie listed on the Polish regulation of place-names.

From the over-head satellite pictures it appears this is an industrial facility of some kind in the town of Pieniężno.

Fails WP:GEOLAND since there is no legal recognition nor evidence of inhabitation since it appears to be a place of business. Also fails WP:V since every source that might confirm the existence of this place comes up negative. Even if it were to somehow be confirmed, this is just a part of the town of Pieniężno and we have nothing to say about it, so WP:NOPAGE would apply. Most likely this place is a business, so WP:NCORP would need to be passed for it to have its own page.

TL;DR - fails verification, GEOLAND, WP:NCORP, WP:NOPAGE. FOARP (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Unlike some other similar articles we've reviewed recently, here, pl wiki doesn't even say what this is a part of, so redirecting (and merging) is hard. I've started a pl wiki AfD discussion to get more input on this, let's wait and see what folks say over there? That said, I'd lean towards redirecting (and merging?) to the town of Pieniężno, which Google maps suggests this is just an outlying district of (this entity is not in TERYT, unlike Pieniężno Pierwsze, which is, and which is a tad more outlying that this one, per eyeballing the map). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What, exactly, warrants merging here? The article in its entirety consists of a (wrong) claim that this is a village and a link to a database that Pieniężno Drugie isn't on. FOARP (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The mapping linked to the Pieniężno website [23] does not show Pieniężno Drugie at all. When one clicks on the farm buildings in the area where Pieniężno Drugie appears on other mapping, the area shows as under Cieszęta. So, as Google mapped boundaries indicate, despite its name, it is not part of the town of Pieniężno, but is part of the gmina. The State Register of Geographical Names - localities has it marked as an niestandaryzowana (non-standardised)=unofficial? + miejscowość(town) + osada (settlement). Doesn't appear to have presumed notability under GEOLAND so unless other sources found sufficient to pass the GNG redirect to either Cieszęta, or Gmina Pieniężno. Rupples (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On balance, think it's preferable to redirect to Gmina Pieniężno where Pieniężno Drugie is already listed. Rupples (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FOARP's analysis and the satellite image.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. https://pieniezno.pl/galeria/20/52/1/15 shows the municipal road in Pieniężno Drugie. The English translation of the heading is Renovation of the Pieniężno Drugie municipal road. Google Street View shows a number of houses along one side of the road. Drugie translates to second and refers to the adjacent former state farm, which by the looks of it also has a residence. So it's a populated place, but without legal recognition. Google Mapping boundaries (though not always accurate) indicate Pieniężno Drugie lies just outside the town of Pieniężno. Whether it's in the town or not, it's certainly within the district. Given this, are we able to agree a redirect to Gmina Pieniężno as the most appropriate solution? Rupples (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Roye shooting[edit]

2015 Roye shooting (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 news story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Not a subject of WP:SUSTAINED coverage or secondary analysis. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extensive coverage years after the event here, here, here, here, here, here. Also discussed to a decent extent in this government report on mass shootings and weapon acquisition in Europe here. Most of the in depth coverage is in French as would be expected. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded it a bit. If the article survives the AfD I'll try to expand it more. Seems to have been a hate crime against the Romani which gives it more relevance, in addition to the coverage PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia needs to take a world wide view of crime. According to the linked report, a suspect was arrested, so presumably the suspect will be dealt with by the French criminal justice system, which probably won't be reported in the English media. In some English speaking countries, with stricter gun controls than the United States, shooting of a policeman and a family would be considered a notable event, even if it was just news. Questions would be asked why did this happen? Compare 2023 Auckland shooting, for example. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is one of the few mass shootings articles that I think actually meet the criteria in WP:NEVENT. It led to identifiable, WP:LASTING effects and commentary. The nature of the hate crime and the murderer's remorse only for the sole police victim and not for the Romani is notable. The sheer irony of building a training facility for police attack dogs at a camp that saw the mass-murder of travellers is also striking. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Middle East wars[edit]

2023 Middle East wars (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 duplicates the content and scope of 2023 Israel–Hamas war. The vast majority of the content here relates solely to that attack, and American military bases getting attacked does not qualify as a "war". Sources do not generally treat these as one broader concept, either, so this arguably violates WP:SYNTH by implying a relationship not supported by sources. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The content and scope of the the article is aimed at Middle East as a region not on just Israel-Hamas war. Israel-Hamas war is now part of a broader regional conflict in the Middle East, we can’t fit in what happening in the region into Israel-Hamas war article. As per article lay out, I think it clearly shows the the aim of the article. This article just needs improvement and the improvement must be a collective effort. Thank you.
Mindthem (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is an attempt to lump incidents in Syria, Yemen, and Israel and Palestine all into one broader war, using mostly WP:SYNTH. Jebiguess (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both Syran war and Gaza war are covered in depth in their respective articles. This article doesnt construct a convincing unifying narrative to justify lumping in several different conflicts into one. F.Alexsandr (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear SYNTH per nom. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As WP:SYNTH. No real evidence that the Israel-Gaza War is part of a unifying, broader conflict. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As WP:SYNTH. It is too early for commentators to tell how exactly these events relate to each other so currently we have no literature on a unified approach to them. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:44, 5 November 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Tyurin[edit]

Ivan Tyurin (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)

Failure of WP:GNG. Unable to find reliable secondary-source coverage about the player. Note that I created this article myself last year. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination correctly withdrawn. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quaestiones Disputatae de Veritate (Thomas Aquinas)[edit]

Quaestiones Disputatae de Veritate (Thomas Aquinas) (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)

Works by Aquinas are likely notable, but this article does not establish this. It provides a one-sentence summary and a table of contents. If notability cannot be documented in the article in the course of this AfD, the redirect to List of works by Thomas Aquinas should be restored. If kept, the page should be moved to Quaestiones disputatae de Veritate (no disambiguation is needed). Sandstein 16:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn: notability has now been established in the article. Thanks, all! Sandstein 10:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 16:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Likely" is almost certainly an understatement. But yes, you are correct to not just assume blanket notability.

    That said: Would you like sources in Italian? ☺

    (Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica is peer-reviewed.)

    (I should add, by the way, that the cool kids call it the QD de Ver. ☺)

    Uncle G (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Portalupi, Enzo (October 1985). "GREGORIO MAGNO NELLE "QUAESTIONES DISPUTATAE DE VERITATE" DI TOMMASO D'AQUINO". Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica (in Italian). 77 (4): 556–598. JSTOR 43061437.

      — this is a Quaestio-by-Quaestio analysis of how Aquinas quotes Pope Gregory I by a post-graduate in Mediaeval studies

    • Mangiagalli, Maurizio (July 2007). "LA TRADUZIONE ITALIANA DELLE "QUAESTIONES DISPUTATAE DE VERITATE" DI TOMMASO D'AQUINO". Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica (in Italian). 99 (3): 517–530. JSTOR 43063798.

      — Even if you don't read the other 13 pages of this review (by a professor of the history of philosophy at Libera Università Maria SS. Assunta) of a translation into Italian by Fernando Fiorentino (former professor of theoretical philosophy at the University of Salento) with commentary, and thus itself being also a potential source, the first page alone tells you all about how De Veritate has been translated into Italian, and into German by Edith Stein.

  • Keep I've stubified the article and added a couple more references in English (though one just establishes dates). The topic is certainly notable. Agree with the proposed move.--Jahaza (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jahaza, do you mind terribly if I undo the stubbification? I think the list of chapters is actually pretty useful, in lieu of a more thorough prose description. Additionally, since many works are about individual questions, that makes it easier to arrange sources for the possible expansion of this article. -- asilvering (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the list of chapters is necessary, but wouldn't object to its restoration. Please just restore that content though, don't remove the prose I added. Jahaza (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any surviving work of Aquinas is going to pass WP:NBOOK#5, which occurs when The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable, meaning that the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. Simply put, Aquinas is so historically significant that his life and body of written work are a common subject of academic study (and have been for hundreds of years). I would also be shocked if WP:NBOOK#4 (The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country) were not met at any point between the 1200s and the present.
    Separately, for the positivists among us, some of the work's arguments are described in Animal Rationality: Later Medieval Theories. Combined with the sources provided by Uncle G above, show at minimum a passing of WP:NBOOK#1 in addition to the other two subject-specific notability criteria. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't care for the WP:NBOOK#5 argument (surely Aquinas has some works we've just listed somewhere as "Aquinas is supposed to have written this" and not much else), but my library search has turned up whole books on single questions from this work, and whole articles on single subsections of individual questions. I don't want to add the books as further reading to the article since none are so easily available that this seems useful. I will add an article I just turned up on Q24,A2 though. -- asilvering (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Maliner (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Fennell[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Theo Fennell (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)

Potentially non-notable jeweler who, while undoubtedly successful in his field, does not appear to be independently notable (aside from hosting some jewelry making events, sitting on some boards, and selling some pieces to various celebrities). Article appears to have been initially created by someone with a personal connection to the subject. Much of the article is rather simple business developments (ex. moving into cocktail shakers and jugs in 2011, complaining about rent prices last year, and just.. stating how much some of his items cost?). The page in general reads still reads like an advertisement 11 years after it's creation. A MINOTAUR (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: More of a story to tell than the article lets on [24], [25], [26]. Could use a rewrite, but with this, should be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as this article easily passes WP:GNG as noted above and in the previous AfD nomination. Nominator has not made a valid policy-based deletion argument. The main complaint that the article is poorly written and needs improvement is not grounds for deletion per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Please also see WP:ATA. If you need help in improving articles, there are many editors who can help provide pointers in the Teahouse, the Guild of Copy Editors, the Article Rescue Squadron, etc., or via the mentor program. Happy editing. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I randomly found this article today and thought it was interesting. I do note the good sources and that might add to the thought that he is indepndently notable. (sorry, not contribued to a deletion discussion before, but some random clicking let me here, and I was glad to see this page existed! I did have a briefly scan of the deletion primers, and I was thinking along similar lines of Cielquiparle, but I can't make any definite statements on that as I'm not too familiar with those. Other than the fact that perhaps this needs to be ammended rather than deleted.) Retnee (talk) 11:55, 8 November 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 14:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Scott (swimming coach)[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:NSPORT, WP:NTRIATHLON, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. In a WP:BEFORE search, all I could find was what's cited in the article now: a passing mention in Macleans, a photo credit in a Globe & Mail article, an article written by the subject, and passing mentions in two posts on Medium. The rest is social media and passing mentions in local event coverage. The photo of the swimming caps in the "Family Law" shoot is interesting, but I can find nothing about it in reliable sources.Wikishovel (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nomination. Coaching experience or professional experience does not appear notable enough to justify page, and in general page seems written like an advertisement. Another user with deep experience on sports/coaching related pages could change my vote - but the events Mr. Scott are involved in appear too minor for a biographical page. A MINOTAUR (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no real WP:SIGCOV of the subject to pass GNG. There is a passing mention in the Globe and Mail article, but nothing much more. --hroest 21:11, 3 November 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 14:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Side (unreleased film)[edit]

The Other Side (unreleased film) (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 about a never-released film, not adequately sourced as the subject of sufficient coverage to be exempted from the primary notability criteria for films at WP:NFILM.
This was first created in 2009 while the film was still in the production pipeline, on the basis of a small blip of coverage when Lindsay Lohan was cast in it -- but she was subsequently dropped from it, and while Olivia Thirlby was cast to replace her, the film still collapsed and never actually came out in that form either.
As always, however, it isn't Wikipedia's goal to maintain an article about every film that enters the production pipeline without regard to whether it was ever actually finished or not -- the principal notability bar that most films have to clear is that they were actually released and reviewed by professional film critics, while never-released films have to demonstrate that their failure would somehow pass the ten-year test as a topic of enduring significance in its own right. But this, with just five footnotes about the casting and uncasting of one actress, doesn't clear that bar, especially since even those five footnotes are mostly to unreliable sources like Hitfix and Digital Spy, rather than real GNG-worthy media.
Additionally, this was redirected to Lohan several years ago on the grounds that as the only aspect of the film that has any sourcing for it whatsoever she's the closest thing it has to a notability claim, but was restored to a standalone article earlier today on the grounds that she wasn't the only notable person involved in it -- but "had notable actors in its cast" is not a notability criterion for films per se (films with notable actors in them are likely to clear other criteria anyway, but it's no sort of guarantee), so the names in the cast list aren't by themselves reasons why an unreleased film would get a special exemption from the film notability standards.
A couple of casting announcements simply aren't enough of a reason why a film that was never released, and never seen by the public or reviewed by film critics, would be permanently notable at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't look like much has happened since the Lohan mention, and that's not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is why we no longer create film articles based solely on casting announcements, rather on the film being actively in production or in the process of distribution; a leftover article of that era. Nate • (chatter) 16:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Note: I was the editor who restored the article. (@Bearcat: I think my article restoration edit may need some clarification based on your nomination statement. I restored the article since the title redirecting to Lindsay Lohan created an issue somewhat akin to an ambiguous redirect since it is not clear "why" Lindsay Lohan was selected as the redirection target when the content of the article contained additional notable biographical topics attached to the project. For example ... why not redirect this title to Woody Harrelson, Anjelica Huston, or Jason Lee (actor) instead? My restoration of this article should not claim that I believe the subject of this article is notable, but rather the redirect was inaccurate and since ... disambiguation at this title to disambiguate subjects attached to an unnotable subject is something we do not do.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I wasn't accusing you of anything unreasonable or improper — I was just explaining the history in the process of building a case for why this title shouldn't exist as either as a redirect or an article anymore. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. If desired, a merger discussion can continue on the Talk, but there's no clear consensus here for anything after nearly a month. Star Mississippi 04:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azad Kashmir bus incident[edit]

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

A terrible accident but not an encyclopedically notable event. All of the coverage is at-the-time news coverage of the incident. No apparent lasting coverage (link fixed) or effects. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Pakistan. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage and verifiability are more important here. WP:LASTING (which is what I assume you meant) seems more like it's one type of possible proof of notability and not disproof of notability. -- Primium (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply being covered in the news at the time something occurs is insufficient to meet notability standards. WP:N says that "Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time"; this incident fails that as all the coverage was directly following the event, with no evidence of any after-the-fact coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are indicators of notability, but the general notability guideline is simply "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." -- Primium (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A crash that killed 23 people would be considered notable anywhere in the western world, so no reason it shouldn't be in Asia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. No indication of WP:SUSTAINED coverage to pass WP:EVENTCRIT which states Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Unlike what others stated, routine bus accidents in the West where many people die don't usually get their own wikipedia article unless they have some sort of broad and lasting impact such as WP:LASTING and WP:GEOSCOPE, or if the sourcing is unusually in-depth and of lasting duration per WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE. We have many such accidents in the USA that don't have encyclopedic coverage on wikipedia for the simple fact that they aren't all that remarkable because vehicular accidents with many fatalities are sadly not that unusual. In order to demonstrate that a particular motor vehicle accident is encyclopedic there must be sustained coverage which extends beyond the news cycle.4meter4 (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per the notability guideline, a subject requires WP:SUSTAINED coverage, and this applies doubly for events (WP:PERSISTENCE). GNG also requires secondary sources, and breaking news is a primary source (WP:RSBREAKING). "23 people killed" is an arbitrary number argument that has nothing to do with the notability criteria. Furthermore, there's simply no logic in saying an event is notable because "it was in the news"; there are dozens of major news events around the world every single day, and it's unreasonable to presume we should have an article about all of them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As other have said, there was no coverage for the sustained impact of this event. I agree that the article should therefore be deleted. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pallandri Tehsil - as an WP:ATD; I think the location article can probably support a 1-2 sentence description in the History section. Suriname0 (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:Sigcov. Maliner (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Necrothesp. Unlike car accidents, bus accidents are not routine at all. The vast majority of articles that we have on bus accidents in Europe and the United States are about accidents that killed far fewer people than the accident here, and deleting a similar accident in Pakistan contributes to a systemic bias towards Western topics that we should aim to avoid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a policy based argument. WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are listed as arguments to avoid at AFD. It's possible those articles also may not meet our notability guidelines. In this case no evidence has been put forward that this particular accident passes WP:EVENTCRIT which is policy.4meter4 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting for someone to throw WP:OTHERSTUFF at me. Outright dismissal of any argument aiming for some geographic consistency in what we consider to be notable events is a rather superficial counter-argument. Indeed, the essay you cited says: "countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged". But to cite some policy/guideline: I will point out that the coverage here is diverse and nation-wide, and provoked reactions from the state-wide authorities, far beyond the "routine" local coverage that EVENTCRIT refers to. I would argue that this is more than sufficient to pass criterion #2 of that guideline. "Routine coverage", in the way that EVENTCRIT uses it, would apply to passenger car accidents, not major public transportation disasters. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Than make that argument with evidence by presenting the sources you believe meet the policy standard. The only way we can operate at AFD is by relying on policies developed through wide community input and consensus. I personally disagree with the claim you made above simply because the cited references do not meet any of the WP:EVENTCRIT criteria in regards to WP:DIVERSE or WP:SUSTAINED and the sources, while national, do not extend beyond the news coverage of the event as required by EVENTCRIT. (see bolded language quoted directly from policy in my comment above). We need other kinds of sources such as books, journal articles, etc. that are WP:NOTNEWS to pass DIVERSE and EVENTCRIT. Or we need coverage of the event over a lengthy period of time (as in a minimum of a year or longer). If all you have is media in the short window right after the event happened, than I'm sorry that is not DIVERSE and it is not SUSTAINED and it is exactly why WP:NOTNEWS was written. Particularly for a routine tragic events like a bus accident we need to see long-term coverage to prove notability. Wikipedia has a lagging indicator of notability written into our policies for a reason.4meter4 (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nagol0929 (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep It passes GNG & Rename per @Necrothesp to 2021 Pallandri bus accident "Incident" sounds Wierd. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinions on whether the article should be kept or deleted, but at the very least I hope to see a redirect to List_of_traffic_collisions_(2000–present)#2021 as an WP:ATD-R if the result was delete. The article clearly has material listed over there, so this would be a more desirable outcome compared to outright deletion in my opinion. S5A-0043Talk 14:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Doesn't appear to have had much of an impact like the Saskatchewan bus accident in Canada did, where they now mandate seat belts on all new buses. This appears to have happened, and just faded away into obscurity. Not that it isn't tragic, but nothing seems to have resulted from it that would warrant an article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm inclined to feel (though not accuse) that the event's geopolitical place may be factoring into some votes here. US based "accident based" mass fatalities regularly have articles even with fewer deaths as seen: List of disasters in the United States by death toll. This event seems no different, and should not be omitted due to being "foreign" or less detailed than other articles. A MINOTAUR (talk) 16:52, 1 November 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 14:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024-25 Lao League 1[edit]

2024-25 Lao League 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is entirely unsourced and speculative, failing our policies on verifiability and Wikipedia not being a crystal ball. A quick Google search also turns up nothing substantial for "2024 Lao League 1" or "2024–25 Lao League 1"; unless the system has been changed, the former should be the correct title for the upcoming season. The article was originally draftified, but then was recreated and expanded in mainspace. Complex/Rational 14:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. (chat | contribs) 14:55, 1 November 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 14:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Viswa Viznana Vidya Adhyatmika Peetham[edit]

Sri Viswa Viznana Vidya Adhyatmika Peetham (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 are some lofty claims made about notability here, but I'm struggling here with internal contradictions in this article.

The congregation is said to have been created in 1472 (cited to a newspaper), but is also supposedly an offshoot of Theosophy which is a new age spiritual religion created in the 19th century. There's an unusual melding of popular religions going on here which is pretty much entirely OR.

If I were to remove the original research from this article, I'm not sure there are any remaining claims to notability. I've done a basic source search but I'm not a subject matter expect and am not fully sure what is going on here.

My working understanding is that this is a small, insular religious community which isn't especially strongly connected to the major religions aside from the cultural influences of its members. This is corroborated by the fact its main headquarters is in a smallish town in rural India.

As documentation of parts of human culture, this is no doubt vaguely WP:USEFUL, but I don't think there's enough written secondary material to justify an article that could be reasonably sourced to any standard of verifiability. My preference here would be DRAFTIFY over DELETE. This could become a worthy article eventually and I don't want this information removed for good, but it's not the place on Wikipedia right now from as far as I can see.. BrigadierG (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 1 November 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! 01:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dejan Crnomarkovic[edit]

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

Not notable; fails to meet the notability thresholds of WP:BASIC and WP:NWRITER due to lack of coverage in reliable independent sources. No better sources seem to be available on this individual either. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 14:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: reference are not reliable. but the writer can be knowed/notable in Serbia, so content should be imporved with reliable references. Serdaray85 (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: A search for .rs sources only brings up articles written by the subject as a journalist, still not seeing GNG being met. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 1 November 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)‎ FOARP (talk) 11:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Treacle People[edit]

The Treacle People (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 Treacle People seems not to abide by WP:NTV. From my own searches, there doesn't seem to be any consistent coverage from sources that are reliable and notable. The article is currently based off of a cartoon blog, and the show's IMDb page was the only other major source I could find (see WP:IMDB). If no one else can find a reason for its notability to be included on Wikipedia, I believe it should be deleted. Coalah (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and United Kingdom. ULPS (talk • contribs) 14:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see a WP:GNG pass based on this source, this source, and their BAFTA award nomination. FOARP (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Agree on the first source and the BAFTA nomination, not so sure about the book mentioning their Christmas episode. Also, the first source discusses the show in its development stages, I feel like we would need a source that discussed the show in past or present tense to a significant extent? Coalah (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also the Manchester Evening News story now linked in the article. The BAFTA nomination was of course retrospective, but this is not an WP:EVENT so we do not need to show lasting or retrospective coverage. The Christmas Special coverage is coverage of the show. FOARP (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point. Keep, although the article clearly needs a bit of cleaning-up. Coalah (talk) 14:02, 2 November 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Wayne Davis[edit]

Billy Wayne Davis (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 was nominated for speedy deletion under WP:A7, and I almost deleted it, he doesn't seem to have much in the way of coverage. The only reason I didn't speedy delete it is because there's one piece of coverage [27] in the Billings Gazette, which carries the slight possibility of conveying notability. Without much else I'd have thought this doesn't meet GNG though, so nominating it at AFD.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. ULPS (talk • contribs) 14:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Tennessee. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The Gazette article is all I can find as well; his own website, then links to get tickets for performances, then download links. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I nominated it because I didn't see anything like that in the article, which I thought was the criteria for A7. I could be reading A7 wrong though, since I'm not a regular/registered user. It's also possible that the Gazette article was in one of the previous versions and I missed it going through. I still don't think that rises to the level of notability, since the Billings Gazette isn't quite a national source, and one article isn't sustained coverage. 24.183.96.14 (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I should also mention that I came here to find out who he was after seeing a twitter fight where he seemed very self-important, and that, combined with the article's history of being a bit aggrandizing (past versions had an unsourced claim he flew for the Blue Angels and one that he, "Has performed in 41 states, 4 countries and Texas," which appears to come from a bio listed for him at venues [[28]] [[29]], presumably written by him, but also unsourced), the fact that the longest and most edit-surviving sentence in the rather short article is a list of well-known artists he's worked with, which sounds a bit like a resume (and is sourced to a recording of the subject himself saying it on a copy of his own album), and the lack of sources other than the subject himself, I suspect the article of being a vanity project by the subject or one of his fans, employees, or friends, but that's definitely a footnote to the total lack of secondary sources in the article, general lack of consistent secondary coverage available at all, and lack of any claims that seem both plausible and notable at any point in the article's history. 24.183.96.14 (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in line with both above. The list of people he's worked with doesn't make him notable, and there's very nothing else in the article that claims notability, nor do i see the Billings Gazette article sustaining it. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 09:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jol Thoi Thoi Bhalobasha[edit]

Jol Thoi Thoi Bhalobasha (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 TV series per WP:GNG. In a WP:BEFORE search in English and Bengali (জল থোই থোই ভালোবাসা), I can find only short promo pieces on the Times of India and the usual TV promo sites, verifying that the show exists, but no significant, secondary coverage. Moved to draft unsourced October 6, then recreated here unsourced by same editor. Wikishovel (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NTV, and WP:TOI. Coalah (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing comes up for this search term in Bengali or English. -- Sohom (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need more bullets[edit]

I need more bullets (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)

Internet meme that does not satisfy general notability or web notability. Created in draft space, then rejected in draft space by User:Maliner, then moved to article space by originator. Proposed for Deletion by User:OutsideNormality, but then deprodded by originator. The only source, Know your meme, has been noted to be an unreliable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. (chat | contribs) 11:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Coalah (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did some searching, could find no coverage in reliable sources. ULPS (talk • contribs) 14:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find reliable sources. GRALISTAIR (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. I think it should be deleted per WP:SNOWBALL. Pinging Liz and Explicit. Maliner (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SNOWBALL. Only one source (and an unreliable one at that), and the article's writing spits in the face of WP:MOS. Occidental Phantasmagoria (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be deleted because other notorious internet memes were on Wikipedia and is there for a long time. e.g.Woman yelling at a cat Please follow me on scratch, https://scratch.mit.edu/users/DogManLoc/ is the link. Also, please friend me on Minecraft by adding Seagull1097 as friend. (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not being deleted because it is a meme, it should be deleted because it isn't notable. See Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ULPS (talk • contribs) 11:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Category:Internet memes has a lot of other non-notable articles that need cleaned up or AfD'd.  // Timothy :: talk  08:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question: So HOW do I make it notable? @Catgull1 (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't make it notable, none of us can. We write about topics that are already notable, we as editors can't make anything notable. Independent, reliable sources like news organizations or magazines are the ones who demonstrate a topic's notability. AryKun (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i mean, are there any notable websites that i can refer to? @Catgull1 (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so what website is reliable (about memes) @Catgull1 (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you'd typically want some independent news organizations to write articles covering the meme to prove that it's independently notable and not just one of Reddit or TikTok's million flash-in-the-pan jokes of the day. AryKun (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simplest way to start, especially for internet related things, is to look up whatever the topic is and go to the google news section. ULPS (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tend to lean inclusionist when it comes to internet phenomena, but this one just doesn't have sufficient coverage. That said, @Catgull1 appears to be new to Wikipedia and I commend them for putting the article together! Every decent Wikipedia I know has had notability disagreements and deleted articles, so I hope they are not discouraged :) Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for speaking up for me :D @Catgull1 (talk) 20:30, 7 November 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 deleted‎ by RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs) as "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". (The nomination was effectively already closed for that reason, but was implemented through a method not usually used for AfD.) (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Shahzad Mohmand[edit]

Speedy deleted per G5. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Muhammad Shahzad Mohmand (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)

Politician who does not satisfy political notability or general notability. This article has been moved from draft space to article space after being declined in draft space, and has no properly formatted references. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 deleted‎ by RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs) as "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". (The nomination was effectively already closed for that reason, but was implemented through a method not usually used for AfD.) (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Hassaan[edit]

Speedy deleted per G5. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Muhammad Hassaan (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)

Declined and rejected at AFC but moved to mainspace, so here we are, fails WP:NACTOR Theroadislong (talk) 09:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phoon Chiu Yoke[edit]

Phoon Chiu Yoke (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:Attack page, and WP:BLP1E. CSD G10 was declined. The subject was in the news for the wrong reasons, and there's nothing positive to write about her. She was notable only for being arrested for not wearing mask during COVID-19. Further coverage on her was about her arrest and subsequent court case(s). The news reported so far were confined mainly to Singapore's media properties. The article should either be deleted or redirected to an appropriate page categorised in Category:COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore. – robertsky (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Coalah (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I can't see her receiving sustained coverage. Pichpich (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tope Dare[edit]

Tope Dare (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)

Previously draftified and moved to mainspace recently. Available sources both online and on the entry are majorly press releases for his appointment in 2018. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:14, 1 November 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 05:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Centenary Memorial Zublee Church, Gumla[edit]

Centenary Memorial Zublee Church, Gumla (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, no 3rd-party coverage ? (I can't verify a single aspect of this church) Sohom (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently fails WP:BASIC, and somehow I doubt its sole contributor will fix that. Occidental Phantasmagoria (talk) 18:05, 1 November 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Gioia[edit]

Carl Gioia (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 Joeykai (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as there are reliable sources and notability of the subject. Support the Keep argument within this discussion. VertyBerty (talk) 08:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Subject comfortably meets GNG thanks to sources found by Alvaldi. JTtheOG (talk) 04:38, 6 November 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 05:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accent Radio Network[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP or WP:GNG as a radio network due to a lack of independent, secondary coverage. Let'srun (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Cannot soft-delete due to vote so requesting more participation to form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies Only[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ladies Only (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 one other straight film, Ladies Only (unreleased film). The Malayalam film is dubbed. On Ladies Only (1939 film) we can put a hatnote pointing to the unreleased film. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Soft deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Prob Keep - seems to me like there are various other entries that could be included including documentary film. I think it is highly likely that the phrase is also used in other contexts. JMWt (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is, of course, used elsewhere so I've added one. Keep. Thincat (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Seems to be more than just two potential things that could be referred to, though the unreleased movie should probably be checked for notability. FOARP (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Murgatroyd[edit]

Stephen Murgatroyd (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE and have not been able to find reliable secondary coverage of this writer, academic and consultant, so I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. I also don't think he qualifies under WP:ACADEMIC. I considered whether he is notable as the former director of the Centre for Innovative Management, but that is a redirect. I also considered whether he is notable as an elected Fellow of the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, but that was rejected as an argument in a couple of other deletion discussions (here and here). No obvious merge target. Tacyarg (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - agree that being a fellow of the RSA counts for very little (I was one until I stopped paying the subscription!). In terms of NPROF, I guess for me the question is whether he meets criteria 1, 4 or 6. I don't know where Dean ranks at the university in question. So for me the question is the extent to which he has "made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions."
My suspicion is that he hasn't and that this is a bit of a WP:PROMO for his post academic career. JMWt (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buford Ray Conley[edit]

Buford Ray Conley (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)

None of the sources seem to be WP:RS that are actually about the subject, apart from a short piece in the local paper's college yearbook issue when he graduated high school. There are several red flags for crankery (e.g. publication in Medical Hypotheses). Guy (help! - typo?) 15:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are five citations in the article to peer reviewed scientific articles published by Buford Ray Conley in multiple scientific publication sources. Moreover, his Google Scholar link indicates many citations of his research. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=86CoBI8AAAAJ&hl=en
The publications Medical Hypotheses were mentioned as a red flag for crankery. The journal, Medical Hypothesis, has a 2020 impact factor of 1.538 (see "Medical Hypotheses". 2020 Journal Citation Reports. Web of Science(Science ed.). Thomson Reuters. 2021.), so it is not a crankery source. Moreover, the specific articles authored by Conley et al. have been cited by numerous other researchers since publication. The evidence of multiple citations by other scientists further discounts the red flag for crankery. Truthlogicreason (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Information on Notability[edit]

I'd like to present additional information that could establish the notability of Buford Ray Conley, thereby addressing some of the concerns raised here. A review of his [Google Scholar profile](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=86CoBI8AAAAJ&hl=en) reveals publications in the fields of molecular gas dynamics and medicine. These works have been cited multiple times, indicating a level of academic recognition and a H score of 4.

1. "A general theory of evolution based on energy efficiency: its implications for diseases" has been cited 23 times. 2. "Utilization of ambient gas as a propellant for low earth orbit electric propulsion" has been cited 12 times. 3. "Experimental determination of performance parameters for a polybutadiene/oxygen hybrid rocket" has been cited 11 times.

These citations could serve as a measure of the impact of his work, which might help establish notability as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The publications also serve as additional reliable sources that are actually about the subject.

I propose that the article be updated with this information to provide a more comprehensive view of Buford Ray Conley's contributions and notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthlogicreason (talk • contribs) 02:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be focused on the scientific notability, particularly the significance of the advancement of Child's Law, rocket propulsion, and the medical research on disease. Those areas of scientific contribution have extensive evidence of references. I deleted the article reference to his high school award because it made the article read more like a biography, which is why the article was likely proposed for deletion. Keeping the article focused on the scientific notability maintains the integrity of the article, despite the well intended contributions by others who researched this person's biographical background. Wassermanschultz (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an additional section to the article discussing the significance of the scientist's work.
=== Comment on Notability ===
I believe the article on Buford Ray Conley should not be deleted due to its significant contributions to the field of plasma physics. One of the notable elements is Buford Ray Conley's generalization of Child's Law, which is a fundamental concept in the study of space-charge effects. This generalization has been cited in academic literature and has implications for ion rocket propulsion. Here is a reference to the equation he created for Child's Law on the article regarding Space charge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_charge and the specific equation: https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/8cc4dd8512c6199da7b3a3922465145cc7fb846b What is particularly notable is that this equation derived by Conley in 1995 improved on Child's Law, which had been used since 1911. In a field like physics, when a scientist improves on an equation that had been considered a "Law" such a contribution to knowledge is very notable. Caring for all Karen (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: resume style promo BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. This issue is WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  23:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't see a path to meeting WP:N. The bulk of the article is sourced only to the subject's own work, and the rest is a CV. —siroχo 03:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wendell Brown[edit]

Wendell Brown (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 reads like a press release or a resume. It appears to have originally been created by the subject's spouse, and then worked on by someone who also created and worked on the spouse's page. There are too many missing or questionable citations, notably omits association with any business failures or scandals (like SoftRAM), and many other edits appear to have been made by the subject or someone close to the subject. Strip away these parts of the article and and it doesn't seem like the subject merits a standalone wiki article. Dharmabumstead (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lean keep. This article does read like a puff piece, but there seems to be a core of facts in it that suggests the subject is indeed notable. He was certainly a software engineer in the 1980's—I found him listed as the author on the instruction booklet for Nova Blast, but not on Beauty and the Beast (which didn't credit anyone, so that doesn't refute the claim)—and while most of the sources cited are suboptimal, they do appear to demonstrate that Brown was a founder of some companies, most of which have since been gobbled up by bigger companies. I note that the claim that he was a co-founder of Teleo is misleading: that article originally listed the company's actual founders, and was later edited, apparently because Teleo merged with another company that Brown did co-found.
I didn't investigate all of the sources listed—many are archived company profiles or minor organizations that I would expect to say nothing more than that Brown was a speaker or participant, without saying anything detailed about him. And some of the major news sites don't mention him when discussing the companies he's supposed to have been involved with—that doesn't mean he's not involved; just that his involvement isn't central to the story, and that suggests that his importance to those companies is exaggerated. His home town newspapers have limited value: small town newspapers aren't known for independent fact checking. On the other hand, I'm not too concerned about non-independent editing: the two early contributors that seem to have been connected to the subject—one of which does appear to be Brown's spouse—haven't contributed to Wikipedia since 2013, and the articles on Brown and his spouse seem to have different contributors in recent years.
My general impression is that this article is in need of a major overhaul, but that there is something salvageable here, and nothing that is obviously a deliberate falsification—so rather than dynamiting it, keep it so that it can be improved. P Aculeius (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the fact that the article was originally written by his family, and appears to have been augmented over the years by someone who may have been employed by the subject *and* his spouse: is this article worth salvaging? If you removed all of the misleading/unsourced/poorly sourced material from the article (which seems to be nearly all of it), does the subject pass the notability test? Dharmabumstead (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Notability isn't determined by the state of sourcing in an article. WP:BEFORE requires a diligent search for reliable sources, not merely dismissing the ones that currently exist. Based on what I could verify just by perusing a few of the sources cited, and checking the one I actually had at home—that I had one potentially citeable source amazes me—I'm satisfied that he's at least somewhat notable.
  2. you can't lump all of the sources together and treat them the same way, as though they all have the same problems. Each one has to be judged individually—some are perfectly good sources for part of what they're cited for, such as what a company does or did or what happened to it; some are good sources for the fact that the subject had some involvement with the company, but don't add anything further; some look like they'd contain valid biographical data, but may be difficult to access online—and you can't delete sources merely because they only exist in print form, or you don't have access to the libraries/resources that possess copies. Many of the sources cited look citeable for this article, even though they should be reviewed as to what they do and don't adequately support.
  3. You haven't stated the basis for your assertion that the article "appears to have been augmented over the years by someone who may have been employed by the subject *and* his spouse". It's pretty clear that the article was started by someone close to the subject, and edited by his spouse up to 2013. But it's been ten years since they were regular contributors to Wikipedia, and there are lots of edits since then. And as the subject appears to be notable, the solution to poor or potentially biased writing or sourcing is to improve it—not delete it. And there's no time limit for improving articles.
Perhaps some sources should be removed, but others just need to be edited in terms of what they say or how they're cited; others can be replaced with better ones. The result may well be pared down from its current size, but careful editing means making sure not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And please note: it is not the responsibility of other participants in an AfD to do the editing to salvage an article in need of extensive improvement. It's the nominator's responsibility to show that the article can't be salvaged—and given that the subject appears to be notable and has at least some valid sources, the article is presumptively salvageable. P Aculeius (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article needs help with editing, formatting and additional reference sources, but I believe the subject is clearly notable. I did brief searches yesterday and today and found more than a dozen published secondary, reliable sources about the subject dating as far back as a 1979 Kilobaud Microcomputing magazine article about him as well as Byte (magazine), InfoWorld, and Computerworld articles on his work in the 1980s and 1990s. Also found several books including from Univeristy of CA Press that describe his notable inventions and contributions in the tech world particularly on the Macintosh in the 1980s, video game creations, and on VoIP technology in the 1990s and 2000s. I started adding to the article to help improve it and will continue to do so, but with the busy holiday season now it will take a while. SanDiegoHangul (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep I Googled for a missing citation and a source came right up, plus others like one from Computerworld describes Brown as an "Internet messaging pioneer" along with Peter Thiel and Max Levchin. These along with sources in the existing references demonstrate notability within his industry. He's not widely known like others, but fame and notability are different. The ease with which I found new reference sources tells me that adding more shouldn't be a problem. But the article's structure needs to be rearranged and tidied to read like a standard biographical article. Yoldivo (talk) 21:48, 4 November 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. I'm just closing this as Keep. Interested editors can pursue Merge options on the appropriate noticeboards or talk pages. But we won't be Merging/Reverse Merging several articles as part of this AFD closure. That will take more discussion outside the realm of AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 08:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SCSI Enclosure Services[edit]

SCSI Enclosure Services (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)

@Zac67: may be correct to say that this is notable but in over a decade no one has added (or suggested as far as I know) any sources to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – SES are vital for most types of SCSI enclosures, internal cages (alternatively SGPIO for cost saving) or external cases. Even if most users never see it it's still there. --Zac67 (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK but do you have sources to show notability? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not decided/sure whether this is notable or not (although there certainly appear to be plenty of sources to establish that it exists, and isn't entirely obscure), but if this is deleted there will almost certainly be a solid case to make that SCSI standalone enclosure services should also be deleted. LittlePuppers (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks I did not know about that article - I have now nominated it for deletion Chidgk1 (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and let's merge both SCSI standalone enclosure services and SES-2 Enclosure Management into this article. It seems to me that all these SCSI enclosure services protocol articles are based on a single loginwalled source at http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=ses2r19a.pdf. I could find some additional sources at https://www.iso.org/standard/55041.html and https://www.snia.org/sites/default/orig/sdc_archives/2008_presentations/monday/RajendraDivecha_SCSI_SES.pdf. NicolausPrime (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's merge SES-2 Enclosure Management which is the same thing. Sadly, T10 standards are only freely available in draft stage ("Status: Publication") – I used to check their site once a month for free updates and have SES-3r13 and SES-4r05 to cite from. --Zac67 (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, as it seems that we had an edit conflict -- I suggested for SCSI standalone enclosure services to be also merged into this article. Are you OK with that too? NicolausPrime (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I can close this discussion if there is support for Merging this article into an existing target article. But I'm not sure how to do a reverse merge when one of the other articles is in an active AFD discussion. This is more complicated than a typical AFD resolution so I want to see if there is support for this decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think this probably meets WP:GNG considering above sources and things like: [38][39] and shorter ones like [40][41]. I think merging together the SCSI enclosure articles likely makes sense. —siroχo 03:34, 1 November 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 09:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aina Asif[edit]

Aina Asif (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:NACTOR. Maliner (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: all but one reference are mere mentions, and the one that has significant coverage isn't independent of the subject. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any more support for draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 1 November 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article with the caveat that major editing work remains to be done to restore a NPOV. Any volunteers? Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Russian innovation[edit]

Timeline of Russian innovation (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)

Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate opinionated information. The term "innovation" is itself vague. For example, article creators think that Saint Basil's Cathedral and Antarctica are "Russian innovations". Not to say it misappropriates items originated among East Slavs well before Russia or Muscovy times, as well as originated in other cultures, such as pelmeni or sarafan, i.e., it is part of Russian nationalistic propaganda. This list may contain tens of thousands items. - Altenmann >talk 20:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A list of Russian inventions and discoveries is not indiscriminate. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 12:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is as an indiscriminate list as List of songs about death or something like that, deleted en masse some time ago.- Altenmann >talk 16:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The argument here isn't that the article is incorrect, it is that the article can never be correct. This is because of many factors; the much less well defined nature of what is Russian and what isn't being one, the inherently POV nature of the wording "Russian innovation" being another. At minimum, I believe that a move to a better title and a large scale rewrite bordering on WP:TNT is needed. The title is a valid point of contention because it defines the scope of the article, and with the current wording of the title, I doubt that this scope is encyclopaedic. Of course, one could make similar argument that the examples you raised of the other nations suffer from the exact same issue; I have not read through those articles and am hence unable to comment on that. However, that doesn't preclude us from making arguments limited to this article in particular. Fermiboson (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are similar articles about other cultures: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China.
Perhaps the article can be renamed, and it certainly can be improved, but it does not meet the Requirements for Deletion even in its present form. Furthermore, a statement such as "it is part of Russian nationalistic propaganda" sounds like a propaganda itself, and it is not a part of wiki-vocabulary. Walter Tau (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term "propaganda" is a valid part of any vocabulary. And appropriating Ukrainian and Belarusian inventions is nothing but "Great Russian chauvinism", not to say about appropriation of things not invented in Russia (of any definition), such as sarafan or bardiche. - Altenmann >talk 15:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are large parts which are good (earlier sections), but many later parts are just lists and some are bloat. Two in early 20th century I noticed are 1890 Chemosynthesis (work not done in Russia) and 1927 LED (not the first). Two of the later bad ones are 2004 Graphene, where none of the work was done in Russia, and 2020 COVID vaccine which implies these were invented in Russia. However, just because it is not very accurate in places is not grounds for deletion, as others have stated.
Ldm1954 (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; obviously with curation for accuracy. Country boundaries move around, and the exact relations between historical discoveries and modern country borders or ethnic definitions are often difficult to determine, but Russia has a long, long history as a major player in world culture and technology, and it's perfectly valid to have a time-line of Russian inventions, just as we can for any major country, region, or people(s). As a side-note, it's very important not to let modern politics influence how we report history. Elemimele (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There is no doubt the topic is notable, but I believe it falls under the category of "lists which can never be made complete, NPOV or satisfy encyclopaedic standards". Setting aside all question of politics, "timeline" usually refers to a coherent, correlated and casually linked chain of events. This is not the case for any suitable definition of "Russian innovation", given the obvious issues with imports of technology and science and interaction with the outside world. The example given above, History of science and technology in China, has a much clearer scope and, most importantly, is not a list. It is an article about history and historiography of a particular topic in a particular region, not a list of discoveries that are somehow manifestly Russian in nature. The wording "Russian innovation" also smells a lot like someone high on смекалка. If the consensus is against a delete, then I suggest at minimum Merge to History of science and technology in Russia (which, note, is an article that already exists, is much more NPOV, and much more well written.) Fermiboson (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And considering the sensitivity of the subject, I'm tempted to do a WP:TNT nuke of the modern sections for a rewrite before the AfD closes. That's a discussion better left for the talk pages, however. Fermiboson (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please do not do a TNT on this article before this AFD is closed. Editors need to be able to evaluate the entire article. Feel free to add improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Would anyone object to posting a notice to the AfD at village pump, or other neutral centralised discussion venue? I feel like this AfD touches on issues that would benefit from wider community input. Fermiboson (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have posted a notice at Wikipedia:Help desk/AfD for Timeline of Russian innovation requiring wider community attention. Fermiboson (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, well, I can’t seem to get that link right. It’s there, anyways. Fermiboson (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Innovation is not restricted to technology, which doesn't describe Saint Basil's Cathedral or vodka anyway. Even if it were narrowed down to just technological innovations, it would be far too broad to be manageable. It would have to list every significant datable Russian invention. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, I still see no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Timeline articles' focus and depth can be adjusted if needed by changing the level of summary or the inclusion criteria. We could also split as needed if it gets too long. As a list it serves a different purpose from History of science and technology in Russia. —siroχo 04:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but heavily re-write - There's no doubt that a list of prominent Russian inventions would pass WP:LISTN, however the article as it stands is not NPOV, but instead heavily nationalistic (indeed, Russian claims to have invented things not invented in Russia is part of the reason why Russian inventions are so well-covered...). It's debatable whether "Russia" actually invented a number of things credited to Russia in this article, particularly as the article does not distinguish between the Russian empire, USSR, and Russian Federation. To pick one example, the claim that Russians invented the first airliner is dubious - aircraft carried passengers before 1913, the company that built the aircraft claimed as the first airliner in this case was the Russo-Balt company which had a HQ in Riga, and Igor Sikorsky, who designed it, was born in Kyiv and died in the United States. FOARP (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Science and technology in Russia. The "timeline" format is unencyclopedic for this content. Owen× ☎ 00:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Maliner (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity Icebreaker[edit]

Diversity Icebreaker (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 appear to be notable. I tried looking for coverage, but found WP:PRIMARY and other uses of the same phrase. PepperBeast (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article has a ton of refs listed at the bottom (@pepperbeast, do those not count towards notability?)
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the refs counts as much as the quantity. To be WP:notable, an article subject should have significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Most of the refs listed here appear to be WP:PRIMARY, blog posts, brief mentions, etc. PepperBeast (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth mentioning that there is one journal. That's it. There isn't any significant coverage in any other sources. TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 05:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The offline journal sources provide significant, secondary, neutral, and independent coverage to the subject, thus making it notable. Thanks, @A. B. TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 07:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I dispute the idea that the references amount to significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.PepperBeast (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • TrademarkedTarantula, here are the off-line refs cited:
    • Ekelund, B. Z., & Langvik, E., Eds. (2008). Diversity Icebreaker. How to Manage Diversity Processes. Oslo: Human Factors AS, 19-28.
    • Ekelund, B. Z., & Pluta, P. (2012, October 8–10). Diversity Icebreaker as a flexible tool for diversity management. Sukces w zarządzaniu kadrami: Elastyczność w zarządzaniu kapitałem ludzkim (accepted for the conference). Wrocław, Poland.
    • Romani, L (2013). "Diversity Icebreaker for Cross-Cultural Management Teaching: Much More Than Breaking the Ice!". Academy of Management Learning & Education. 12 (3): 534–536. doi:10.5465/amle.2013.0156.
    • Orgeret, K. S. (2012). "Intercultural educational practices: opening paths for dialogue. New Media, Mediated Communication and Globalization". Intercultural Communication Studies. 21 (1): 189–204.
    • Rabotin, M. B. (2011). Culture Savvy. Working and Collaborating Across the Globe. The American Society for Training & Development.
    • David, Clutterbuck; M, Poulsen, Kirsten; Frances, Kochan (1 July 2012). Developing Successful Diversity Mentoring Programmes: An International Casebook: An international casebook. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). p. 25. ISBN 978-0-335-24388-4. Retrieved 26 October 2023.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    • Ekelund, B. Z., & Jørstad, K. (2002). Team Climate Inventory intervention manual (Danish). Copenhagen: Danish Psychological Publisher.
    • Mæhle, N.; Shneor, R. (2010). "On congruence between brand and human personalities". Journal of Product & Brand Management. 19 (1): 44–53. doi:10.1108/10610421011018383. hdl:11250/135984. S2CID 53593685.
Did you look at all of these, too?
Thanks,
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also the Bokmål Norwegian Wikipedia article's references:
That article has 9 more refs than this one.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if we remove every Ekelund source, this still seems to meet GNG with source in the article including Clutterbuck, et al. and Romani. There's other coverage not in the article like (Henry W. Lane, et al. International Management Behavior: Leading with a Global Mindset) and (Rabotin, Culture Savvy: Working and Collaborating Across the Globe) —siroχo 04:47, 1 November 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! 01:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Masato Degawa[edit]

Masato Degawa (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. To be honest I did not fully analyze the non-English sources but everything derived / sourced from them is basic resume-type factiods rather than GNG type coverage. Some concern regarding the creator with 168 lifetime edits and a wiki-expert at edit #1 and all edits have been on individuals who would commercially benefit from having a Wikipedia article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:
Regarding the nominator's comment about the article creator's other edits: EnigmaSeeker has also created articles about historical figures. These people are presumably gaining little commercial benefit from their articles since they are dead.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Management, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Article as it stands is a professional profile, and virtually all the English-language coverage of the individual is attributed statements, with an occasional mention of prior jobs, but not enough to construct an article. The Japanese-language sources in the article don't provide independent SIGCOV either. —siroχo 04:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud-native processor[edit]

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

This is a neologism that has little independent coverage or notability. It's not meaningfully different from just a GPCPU aside from in core count and who builds/buys them. From looking at the sourcing, it looks like a term being pushed by one vendor only (Ampere Computing) but without broader industry adoption. lizthegrey (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. lizthegrey (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep All three major types of processors (Intel, ARM, AMD) are covered - especially now that I've just now fleshed out Intel's offering. Michaelmalak (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your recent addition is WP:SYNTH to change "for cloud-native workloads" into supporting the term "cloud-native processor". I don't dispute that processors can be suited to CN workloads, but the idea that a processor category of CNP exists is not broadly supported. lizthegrey (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also just now added a cite to a secondary source (book) Michaelmalak (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read the original text for that cite, which doesn't seem to actually use the phrase "cloud-native processor", only states that "cloud computing environments use multi-core processors" (but this is hardly unique, everything is multi-core, even desktop/laptop processors). so again fails WP:SYNTH, and more severely than the intel example which at least says "for cloud-native workloads". lizthegrey (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    this doesn't make any sense, if a criterion for being a "cloud-native processor" is not using SMT (per lede), then Intel and AMD processors should be disqualified, thus making it an ARM and RISC only thing. And of the ARM vendors, only Ampere uses this phrasing; AWS/Annapurna does not for its Graviton line. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cloud-native+processor%22+-ampere vs https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cloud-native+processor%22+ampere is pretty striking. Ampere specifically markets itself as the "first Cloud-Native Processor supplier", so this page is just marketing fluff for Ampere. lizthegrey (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Different lines of CPU models may be suitable or optimized for e.g. virtualization (feature flags for Intel VT-x or AMD SVM), gaming (cache size), high-frequency trading (clock speed), vectorized computations (microarchitecture), many-core workloads, power efficiency etc. etc., and marketed as such. That does not mean they are "X-native processors". It is just marketing. If there were truly a new type of processor that deserved the term "cloud-native processor" (as opposed to "cloud-native CPU", which would be a lower bar to justify, but even that is still not met IMO) it would have to be tangibly distinct in architecture and physical nature from conventional CPUs in the way that GPUs, TPUs, and QPUs are - not merely a usage trend or marketing term. The article (and references) fail to articulate what the specific cloud-native nature of the CPU is. The fact is that they are simply regular CPUs with many cores that are efficiency-optimized, and among the many types of workloads that can benefit from this, cloud-native applications may tend to be one because they are easily horizontally scaled. The explanation in the article, "allows for simultaneous connections in a cloud environment resulting in scalability" is highly tenuous and makes no sense at all. It is definitely not the case that cloud-native applications require extremely dense servers with high core counts, because that is antithetical to the distributed microservices architecture of cloud-native computing, where many lightweight containers are orchestrated and horizontally scaled across many redundant nodes. Rather, cloud-native architectures simply allow many-core CPUs to be exploited efficiently and scalably while eliminating the downside of the lower performance of individual cores. Cloud-native is not an easily-articulated or -understood concept, but it is easy to throw around as a buzzword, as in this case. Rotiro (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the best option is a partial merge to Cloud-native computing. This seems right per WP:NOPAGE, and also provides that article as context to this article's information. Additionally, I don't see a way this specific page can exist without being promotional. "Cloud-native computing" is still buzzwordy, but at least it vaguely encompasses some vaguely-agreed-upon industry expectations that we can attempt to use secondary sources to write an article about, and a paragraph noting that there are processors being designed for the purpose would probably fit there. —siroχo 06:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to second your opinion initially, but couldn't find anything about "cloud-native computing" that would apply the term to CPUs in Google Scholar. All mentions in Google Books seem to refer to software as well. Do you have any sources that would support that the "vaguely-agreed-upon industry expectations" in this regard exist? Wonder if may have missed something. PaulT2022 (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Vaguely-agreed-upon is my own choice of words for this discussion, meaning that right now really aren't standards around what qualifies as "cloud native", and it's mostly a marketing term. —siroχo 22:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a poorly-sourced neologism. All sources echo Ampere Computing's marketing that appears to artificially differentiate processor with quantitative differences to competitors (at best), higher thread count per socket, by claiming there's an underlying qualitative difference that applies to cloud applications. The claim isn't supported by any engineering publications on hardware architecture. PaulT2022 (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. change to delete since this title wording is actually purely an advertisement for ampere company after googling further. There will be no specific article for hardware dedicated to cloud applications. "Cloud-native computing" is not about the processors themselves. Merging would make it a grab bag. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I'm not proposing to leave a redirect, I'm proposing to outright delete (or, second choice, redirect to CPU or similar) lizthegrey (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if secondary and independent sources that discuss the topic wholistically exist. Hardware dedicated to cloud applications was ample since the 90s, Sun Netra, Oracle Exalogic and whatnot, but I've never seen a secondary source discuss this is a class of hardware and always perceived it to be a marketing term, rather than a genuine topic in hardware design. I'm concerned that keeping the article based on mentions of hardware being "cloud-native" in non-independent and primary sources would result in Wikipedia:Original research, evolving into a Wikipedia:Coatrack article. PaulT2022 (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is redundant to merge an article when there is little focus on the topic of the article merged to it, and deleting the article would constantly cause new creations based on the topic. Equalwidth (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete. I see no reason why the primary article needs to exclude any hypothetical coverage of hardware from its scope (however little of it there is outside of marketing materials). Recreation can be dealt with with the judicious application of salt. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Even after improvements spurred by this AfD, the entire lede is sourced with "cloud native software" articles (whether these, sitting at the junction between blogspam and editorial ads, are suitable as sources at all is another question entirely), which does not support the notion introduced therein. The reminder of the article remains a thinly veiled advertisement. 147.161.169.93 (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as this concept didn't get found in academic articles of peer-reviewed journals. As an example, the article Air entrainment was also proposed for deletion, but I found dozens of academic articles since at least 1950s, and linked them to support the notoriety claim. This is not yet happened with Cloud-native processor. In the meanwhile, we may use Cloud-native processor as a section in some other article, but not as a separate article, due not insufficient notability (WP:N) yet. --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a buzzword, and the article in its current state has considerable WP:SYNTHESIS and relies largely on press releases. Almost the entire "Technology" section is dubious. It may be the case that down the line the term catches on and assumes a more concrete meaning, in which case this should still be deleted per WP:TOOSOON; we can remake the article later. StereoFolic (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it is a verifiable topic that, if deleted, will result in hundreds of editors trying make a new article for it, and merging would be an even worse option because it shortens the contents of what is Cloud-native processor inside another article. Equalwidth (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You've !voted twice. May I suggest a self-revert / adding onto your existing remarks above? lizthegrey (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Cloud-native computing, which is little more than a stub at this point. Owen× ☎ 23:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_November_1&oldid=1184232771"