Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 03 November 05 >

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 merge‎ to 2023 Israel-Hamas war. This comes down to where the support of editors is on a judgement call around NEVENT, as detailed by Last1in. There is sufficient consensus here in my reading that this should be merged rather than retained. Daniel (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ansar Mosque airstrike[edit]

Al-Ansar Mosque airstrike (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)

One of many non-notable WP:CFORKS from the 2023 Israel-Hamas war. WP:NOTNEWS and unlikely to have WP:ENDURING as one of hundreds of reported tactical airstrikes during the war. Worth a bullet or two in the Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023. Longhornsg (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Merge - I also must say I don't think it's likely to have WP:ENDURING. Also it does seem to have similar information and could indeed present WP:CFORKS. I agree that Wikipedia is not news. I also agree that there shouldn't be an article for every airstrike.
I would recommend either deletion or adding it in about two sentences to a page that deals with the war or with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the West Bank.
Kind regards Homerethegreat (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENDURING is impossible to prove one way or another at this point. As noted, it's the realm of speculation, i.e.: not a reason to delete. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is notable and very well sourced Abo Yemen✉ 14:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seem to be sufficient valid sources for the mentioned article to portray its notability; although it is better to add more related sources to it, as well. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it was taken about considerably at the time, and continues to be referenced [1] as a notable event and inflection point in the darkening conflict - both as a strike on a mosque in the West Bank (not Gaza), and the first airstrike in the West Bank in two decades, as noted on the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67186178
  • Merge per Homerethegreat. Loksmythe (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into October_2023_Jenin_incursion, which is for now the least-detailed and sourced entry in the series of incursion articles. If that doesn't grow in time it might be merged into the timeline. – SJ + 21:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This merge suggestion doesn't really makes sense, given that this page is significantly larger than the proposed target, and so would instantly unbalance that page in favour of this particular airstrike. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For this article in particular as per Ali Ahwazi it is well enough written with sufficient sources for notability. Some articles of this nature are stub only and could be considered for merging if not broadened. As per Iksandar WP:ENDURANCE can’t be determined while events are happening. More broadly for articles of this type currently being created, they are not generally WP:CFORK which says “A content fork is a piece of content…that has the same scope as another piece of content that predated it, essentially covering the same topic.”. The timeline very broadly talks about battles, airstrikes etc. but these sub articles rather than forking provide richer detail on events mentioned in passing on the list. They are valuable for overall understanding of the war if meeting WP:N, WP:V and WP:NPOV (this last being most difficult in the circumstances). Ayenaee (talk) 17:56, 5 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! 00:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into 2023 Israel-Hamas war - This is a classic case of WP:TOOSOON. There is no way to know if this particular event will meet WP:NEVENT's WP:EFFECT or WP:PERSISTENCE criteria. I'd argue it is highly unlikely to do so on current evidence, but I'd have no trouble with this article being recreated in a year or two if this particular strike stands out amongst the plethora of atrocities (on both sides) in this horrific and senseless war. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge WP:TOOSOON. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 00:05, 11 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 due to editor participation. Please feel free to merge/redirect editorially if desired. Daniel (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piwnice, Pomeranian Voivodeship[edit]

Piwnice, Pomeranian Voivodeship (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)

Bot-created article by Kotbot, operated by retired user Kotniski.

"Piwnice" means "cellar", the location given in the article is a random house in the village of Malenin, which must be wrong. Google maps does have a location on it called Piwnice about 6 miles away, but it's empty fields. The PL wiki article includes no sources, this article is sourced only with a general reference to the TERYT database. Checking the Polish regulation on place names, this place is described as a Kolonia (i.e., not an independent village, hamlet, settlement, or town, but an extension of an existing one). Looking at the Polish statistical database, no information is found for anywhere called Piwnice in Gmina Tczew. A search online found only information about a historic beer-cellar inside the village of Tczew.

There is no evidence that this is a populated place, and quite a bit of reason to think that it is not. If it is an extension of a town/village, it is not clear which one.

If anyone is searching in Polish for a cellar in Pomerania, it is not conceivable that they would be looking to be redirected to Tczew, so I do not see any reason to redirect this.

TL;DR - fails WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG, WP:NOPAGE, and WP:V. FOARP (talk) 11:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The official place name register puts it at 54°04′23″N 18°40′38″E / 54.07306°N 18.67722°E / 54.07306; 18.67722, in Lubiszewo Tczewskie. OpenStreetMap shows a house number there, with an address in Lubiszewo Tczewskie and a Polish government website as a source, but it's unclear if there are any buildings in the trees (and puts the place name on part of the village). Peter James (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. TERYT confirms it exists [2] and I see nor eason why kolonia should not pass GEOLAND. That said, other then it existing and being legally recognized, as usual, there is not much to say about it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case WP:NOPAGE is clear about what to do with this. Especially considering we can't actually verify any location for this on the map. FOARP (talk) 08:43, 17 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! 21:31, 21 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! 22:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 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 no consensus‎. This No consensus closure doesn't mean that this article can't be turned into a Redirect, it just won't be as a result of this AFD. Please discuss this possibility on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polesie, Pomeranian Voivodeship[edit]

Polesie, Pomeranian Voivodeship (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 bot Kotbot operated by retired user Kotniski. There is nothing at the location in the article. The nearest building is the forestry office for Boroszewo, the address of which is given in Wędkowy.

This is an osada, or settlement, not a village or hamlet. It is a status often given to individual buildings, but in this case it is not clear that anyone has ever lived at the location indicated in our article.

In terms of ATDs redirecting to Tczew or another larger settlement only makes sense if you think we should redirect simple place-names to articles that won't contain any content about them. I don't think that makes sense.

Fails WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG, WP:NOPAGE FOARP (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please do not wait for User:Stok to make your opinion final.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 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 no consensus‎. This No consensus closure doesn't mean that this article can't be turned into a Redirect, it just won't be as a result of this AFD. Please discuss this possibility on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brzęczek[edit]

Brzęczek (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)

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

There is nothing visible at the location in the article. Lake Brzęczek does not appear to have anything built on its shores other than a few fishing jetties.

The article states that Brzęczek has a population of 5 people, however no source is given for this, either here or on the PL wiki article. I cannot find a listing for Brzęczek on the Polish statistical database where census data should be available (it collects data back to 1998 and the date given for this population in the PL wiki article is 2006).

The TERYT database, and the Polish regulation on place-names, both describe this as an osada (settlement) which are typically single buildings, and for which population statistics may not be collected. The nearest building I can find to the location given in the article is a forestry office for the forest of Jastrzębce, the address of which is given as being in "Jastrzębce" so I don't think this is the building referred to.

TL;DR - this place has no demonstrated population. Fails WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG, WP:NOPAGE. No reasonable redirect - the name is simply the Polish word for "buzzer", which no-one would reasonably search looking for a random place in Poland. No accurate content to merge. FOARP (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Pl wiki gives population as 5, which is hardly impressive, but nonetheless I think hamlet, legally defined, passes GEOLAND. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus - As discussed in the nom, PL wiki does not have a source for this, and checks on the GUS statistical database do not show any data being held there for this location. FOARP (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @FOARP TERYT lists it as pl:osada. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus - Right, and what is an osada for the purpose of the registry? In many cases, just the former forestry office, or local state farm, or railway station, or fisherman's hut, or mill - not a village or even a hamlet. If it was a village, hamlet, colony, or similar establishment, then it would be listed as such. FOARP (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @FOARP I agree. The thing is, it meets GEOLAND 'legally recognized place' criteria. Further, I feel that at minimum such names such be redirects in wiki, as there are searchable terms. But if we have no good redirect target, keeping this until we do seems more helpful to the readers than having a red link. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus -WP:GEOLAND requires a legally-recognised populated place, and this has failed verification as to whether anyone has ever lived here. If a redirect target is needed, it could be redirected to the Gmina it is in (Gmina Liniewo). My guess is this was probably a fishing hut or forestry office at some point, which is how it made it on to the register.
    The alternative is keeping an article that we can't ever improve because there won't ever be any information about such a place, but also can never delete because it is impossible to prove an negative (i.e., that this place never existed or at least was never a real populated settlement). FOARP (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't know if anyone has ever lived here, yes, but we also have no proof nobody did. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, WP:BURDEN is clear that the people making the claim that is was inhabited are the ones who need to prove it was. FOARP (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Piotrus, you asked to pinged for articles where there was a viable redirect. Here it would likely be Jastrzębce, Pomeranian Voivodeship. FOARP (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @FOARP Hmmm. The Google map doesn't even show Jastrzębce, just the forestry office? @Stok. Frankly, if we have a RS that this entity is in another entity, I am not very opposed to redirecting since stand-alone articles should prove someting beyong "existence". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus - This source says that Brzęczek is in the Jastrzębce forest: https://starogard.gdansk.lasy.gov.pl/en/rezerwaty-przyrody FOARP (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. User:Stok hasn't edited for several weeks and only has 53 edits on the English Wikipedia. I wouldn't wait for them to make your opinion final.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 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 delete‎ per WP:G5 as article created by sockpuppet. signed, Rosguill talk 21:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet-Moroccan fishing vessel incident (1980-1981)[edit]

Soviet-Moroccan fishing vessel incident (1980-1981) (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)

An article about a minor incident with no significant coverage (a couple news articles from 1980 and one recent unreliable source). Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. M.Bitton (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:It remains an incident. I was simply adding more articles to Morocco's history on wikipedia. Lefootop (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A minor unknown incident that you're trying portray as a war. Let's see what the others think. M.Bitton (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, this article should not be deleted based on that reason. The content within the article is authentic and does not endorse any false narratives or misinformation. The sources cited are reputable and offer substantial information about this incident. I do in fact understand your point that this article is not well known, but that should not be a reason to delete the article as a whole. The fact that this particular event is not widely recognized does not diminish its significance or the legitimacy of having a dedicated article. 174.114.138.92 (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:GNG, especially the first sentence. M.Bitton (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:::I have never tried to portray as a war. The lists i put this incident on contain conflicts involving the country that is the subject of the list. For example, the 1958 rif riots can be found on the list of wars involving Morocco. Was it a war though? I don't think so. Lefootop (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I accepted the draft, so I might as well leave a note here. I recognized that this was borderline (although I didn't realize all the drama that would ensue), but my acceptance was based off of the two articles from El Pais (which appears to be uncontroversially considered reliable), as well as a much later article (indicating that this was not entirely forgotten afterward) from a source I could not assess the reliability of with certainty (it does not show at up RSN or NPRSG; it doesn't appear as obviously reliable as some sources, but seems to have some editorial control). I'll make no !vote at this time. LittlePuppers (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: the article has now been CSD tagged (given that it was created a block evading sock). M.Bitton (talk) 17:23, 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 23:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lassen Lodge, California[edit]

Lassen Lodge, 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)

Article cites only one source which is a weather station webpage; fact attributed to said source fails verification. (Where does the "hamlet" designation come from?) The Lassen Lodge, CA Facebook page suggests that Lassen Lodge was a "historic former mountain resort", as does the page for Lassen Volcanic National Park. (A quick scan of Tehama County newspapers via Newspapers.com turns up the sale of the 630-acre roadside resort in 1968 and a passing mention of a Lassen Lodge Fire Station in 1971.) There is also a Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project, but it seems disingenous to represent any of these as a hamlet in California deserving of its own article. Does not meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Should also mention that I deleted a huge amount of text on this page which was unencyclopedic, lacking any citations, and read like WP:OR or like a hoax – see for yourself here. The only real WP:ATD I can think of are to either redirect to the volcanic national park page, or to rewrite this entire article to be about the historic resort rather than as a geographic location, but I don't think there are enough sources to justify a standalone resort page per WP:NCORP. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draftify: The massive amount of detailed (and totally unsourced) content you deleted could make for an encyclopedic article, but not without proper sourcing, which we don't have at the moment. I would support re-creating the article if and when such sources are found. (Also, thank you for your edits; I found this article a few weeks ago and had been meaning to clean it up or PROD, but looks like you beat me to it). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. TH1980 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some icing on the cake: Contra to the article, the Battle Creek Hydroelectric System wasn't a 1980s proposal that was fought off. It has been around since 1901, a decade before Lassen Lodge even existed if you believe the wholly unverifiable claims of the original article. Uncle G (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that it's a total hoax. Although one might start off thinking that:
    • I tried to find either of the Henri Joris: no joy.
    • I tried to find Sylvanus Giles Tully: someone of that name got married in a genealogy, with no connection to California mentioned at all; no joy.
    • I tried to find Bill Swart: no joy.
    • I tried to find the Red Bluff Daily News articles from 1939 and 1940, or any mention of Lassen: no joy.
    • I looked for the "1985 Memories article about Ethel Lesher", introduced in the prose with no explanation: I found only a 1985 NYT article about a (possibly notable with that as at least 1 source!) Lesher House museum in Victor, Colorado; no joy.
    • I looked for Arthur Garben, and John Freitas: I found a John E. Freitas councillor of Fairfield, but no mention of a Lassen; no joy.
    • I looked for Charles and Edith Skinner: too common to narrow down, and nothing with a "Lassen" in it; no joy.
    • I looked for a "Tehama County Energy Authority conducted a study to develop a hydroelectric facility on Battle Creek" in the 1980s and only found a 2021 application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and no evidence that there has been any such thing as a "Tehama County Energy Authority", let alone a court battle with it.
    • The two external links in the original revision of the article turn up random pictures of a Masonic lodge monument in Missouri and no applicable documents, all being false positives for Lassen County, California.
    • The one working reference in the original revision of the article goes to 1 picture of a weather station with no mention of any lodge or camp or anything existing.
    • I found the Tehama County Power Authority and a 1 sentence note by the Bureau of Reclamation that far from failing as claimed in this article it "licensed the Lassen Lodge Hydropower Project on January 30, 1986, under FERC Project 5350". This matches up with what the nominator found.
    • I found the California: Guide to the Golden State of 1939, and it does have a tour 6A and that does have a Lassen Camp. It gives it 13 words on page 532: "LASSEN CAMP (cabins, saddle and pack horses, guide service) is at 79.5 m."
    • The California: Guide to the Golden State of 1939 also notes on page 465 that a Peter Lassen, unmentioned in this article, built a Masonic Lodge, again contra this article, in Los Molinos, also contrary to this article; and that is the one connected to Missouri.
    • There is a Lassen Lodge between Paynes Creek and Mineral on the maps, but maps aren't history books.
    • The history books turn up a Lassen boy scout lodge in the neighbouring Butte County, California, which is completely unrelated to this purported lodge in Tehama county.
    • They also turn up the lodge built at the Lassen Volcanic National Park, but again that's actually something else entirely, in a different place that is not between Paynes and Mineral.
    • There's nothing about this in the Arcadia Publishing book on Tehama County, which conversely has Peter Lassen, the Lassen Peak, the Lassen Trail, and even the Mount Lassen Trout Farm.
  • In summary: I can provide about 2 sentences of verifiable information about a Lassen Camp/Lodge, one of which doesn't agree with the purported history written by Bgranger (talk · contribs) (pretty much nothing in which is verifiable), and the nominator's news article adds about 2 sentences to that. We've had 26Ki of unverifiable, and in some places verifiably counterfactual, content up for 11 years. And it failed at AFC in 2012 and shouldn't have got into the article namespace at all. This should not go back to being a draft. Delete.

    Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - based on these 15 photos at DPLA it was definitely a mountain resort in the 1930s but hotels aren't automatically notable as far as I know so. jengod (talk) 07:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • it had a rumpus room (?!) and was located on the Susanville-Red Bluff Highway in case anyone every finds this AfD looking for actual info. I am worn out yall! jengod (talk) 07:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • the gonis sold to the skinners in 1954

      jengod (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • a woman named Sylvia Schwartz supposedly built it also she had a collection of vintage hunting and fishing licenses ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      jengod (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's in the GNIS bc it was something once and it was a handy landmark in the middle of nowhere along California State Route 36 and it looks like it was preceded by something called Jiggs's Camp and it was sold in 1968 after being empty for two years. Good night, Tehama County! jengod (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh you'd be shocked why some things are in the GNIS. ☺ Generally, after Wikipedia:GNIS and GNIS#Populated places, I just throw away GNIS information for being highly unreliable in its process and start from first principles. Half the struggle in these AFD discussions over the years has been finding what GNIS record imports are really hiding. And this article didn't even start as a GNIS import. At least we started out knowing to look for a resort, not a post office, tank, survey corner, steam train watering stop, or cave.

        Of course, my trusting the "December 18, 1939 Red Bluff Daily News article" and "January 19, 1940 Red Bluff Daily News story" in the original text didn't even have me looking for stuff from 1954 and 1957. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        • @Uncle G If Wikipedia can be the resource that quickly and responsibly explains to people why the dot on their Google Maps app is there, or why that sign points to any empty crossroads, or why the caravansai stopped at that watering hole instead of the one a league away, AWESOME. However...we don't yet have enough hands on deck to explain every dot to featured quality, tho, so ya gots to pick yer battles. In short, everybody (but especially you!) is doing just fine. Keep up the great work. Cheers, jengod (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of the passing mention news article, Bill Swart from the original article is evidently incorrect for Bill Schwartz. So I looked for that, too: no joy. If there's a history of Lassen Camp/Lodge, photographed but with no meaningful captions or descriptions in the UC Davis archives, 13 words in a Federal Writers Project Guide to the Golden State, mentioned in a 1939 directory of garages for motorists as simply "Lassen Camp Garage — 7 mi W of Mineral", it isn't locatable by any of the three of us so far. Uncle G (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Taken at face value (something we definitely should not do) this place was a resort. The appropriate notability standard is WP:NCORP which this article, at any point during its existence, stands/stood no chance of meeting. FOARP (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:18, 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 redirect‎ to Clinton, Oneida County, New York#Geography as an ATD. If anyone wishes to selectively merge, please feel free to do so from the history behind the redirect at The Knob (New York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Daniel (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Knob (New York)[edit]

The Knob (New York) (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 seem like there is anything to say about this place. A search turned up quite literally nothing. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Hard to find information given the name, but GNIS does not establish notability, and if nobody thought to come up with a more distinctive name for this site, I would say that's solid evidence of non-notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's called Knob because that's another name for a kame. Uncle G (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly, there's about a sentence to say, at least, from Gridley 1874, p. 138. Of course, that's an old history book. I'll see whether there any newer ones for Kirkland or perhaps Oneida. One can see how rubbish GNIS import is, given that apparently Kirkland is in the village of Clinton. Or so Wikipedia has told the world for 6 years. Uncle G (talk) 12:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gridley, Amos Delos (1874). History of the Town of Kirkland, New York. Hurd and Houghton.
  • It's not in the Arcadia Early Kirkland book. Not a good sign. The Arcadia books are fairly good pointers on this stuff. Uncle G (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing in the geologies or geographies, either, although (as can be seen) I found general mention of there being kames along the Oriskany Creek. Uncle G (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and selectively merge to Clinton, Oneida County, New York#Geography. WP:GEONATURAL indicates that If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. The 1800s-era source is enough to maybe warrant a small mention in the article on the village (which is a part of the Town; New York has these sorts of weird multi-level municipal governments). And a sentence noting the peak's existence/brief history seems apt there. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that makes sense. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not seeing enough significant coverage to include as a standalone or in another article. The bit about the observatory, which was never built, just doesn't seem important enough to mention. –dlthewave ☎ 18:17, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DAV Public School, Koyla Nagar[edit]

DAV Public School, Koyla Nagar (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)

Does not appear to meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. Unable to find non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:57, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drago Ančić[edit]

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

I'm unable to find evidence that this person meets WP:GNG, or even that there is a single non-database reliable source, per WP:NSPORTS. Google and newspapers.com turn up nothing usable; source may conceivably exist in Croatian or other regional languages, but we need evidence that they may exist, not just supposition. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - sources about football in Sarajevo for this time period will be hard to come by but I can't find any evidence of WP:GNG Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:15, 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! 07:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Geeez[edit]

Oh Geeez (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:BAND. This has bounced back and forth to draft in at least three copies that I can see, where it was declined twice for notability and poor sourcing. It would probably qualify for speedy db-band if not for the Animation World Network reference, but that's quite short, and I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources in a WP:BEFORE search, just routine local coverage. Wikishovel (talk) 10:20, 14 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! 06:59, 21 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! 07:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Soft-deletion is unlikely to stick here given history of the article, so final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – I'm not seeing significant coverage anywhere that would make this pass WP:BAND. I also am unable to find anything additional for sourcing. Tollens (talk) 07:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to demonstrate notability, and I was also unable to find significant coverage in my quick search of the usual spots. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:17, 11 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! 07:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tossed (retail)[edit]

Tossed (retail) (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 probably not notable and the article is too short and probably won't grow. Janhrach (talk) 06:28, 14 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! 06:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further sources: in the Telegraph again [3] although much is quotes from the founder. The Metro [4]. The Caterer [5]. Assessing this as borderline notability per NCORP. Neutral. Rupples (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get a second opinion on sources found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Telegraph source is inaccessible to me; the Metro source is lots of words to convey exactly 1 minor fact; and the Caterer source supports a sentence perhaps about the collapse and sale of the business 3 years ago (and another source in fact did so until Janhrach took that content out). A quick look around turns up nothing apart from not very disguised press releases and a half-sentence aside in a self-published book. As Rupples said, this is borderline, and I think is more below the bar than above. There just isn't enough outwith the press releases that would enable the creation of a proper article. Uncle G (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did do a quick search, not sure if I want to turn this into a more substantive comment later, but I do want to note while the Metro isn't deprecated like its sister publication (Daily Mail) it is uh... not considered too reliable, so should probably be struck from consideration for that if not any other reason. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did actually finish this a bit earlier, but got distracted by the shinies, sorry. Didn't manage to find anything worth speaking of, The Caterer is a bit "routine anouncement-y", Metro is their usual tabloid crap with zero substance, and Telegraph's only substance is what's from the founder. So yeah, delete for me as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--I also think we are below notability here. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Hirsch[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC. I'm unable to find independent secondary sourcing for notability. Edit: Withdrawn based on addition of book reviews. lizthegrey (talk) 20:25, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Parveen[edit]

Alisha Parveen (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:NACTOR C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 13:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She is notable actor clearly passes WP:NACTOR. She worked in many notable movies and drama series. Recently she played a lead role in a hit and notable Indian web series School friends.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can only cast one "vote" here. Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. NOTINHERITED applies to mentions in promos, interviews fail WP:IS. BLPs require strong sourcing.
Source eval:
Comments Source
In article
Promo interview, fails WP:IS WP:SIGCOV 1. City Air News (2023-09-04). "Teachers' Day: COLORS' actors' express gratitude to their mentors; Alisha Parveen". Cityairnews. Retrieved 2023-10-28.
Video trailer, fails WP:IS WP:SIGCOV Entertainment - Times of India Videos". The Times of India. Retrieved 2023-09-29.
Promo interview, fails WP:IS WP:SIGCOV 3. ^ "Alisha Parveen on her 'Udaariyaan' role: My character is almost like my real-life nature". The Times of India. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-10-28.
Review, mentions subject, fails WP:SIGCOV (does not address the subject directly or indepth) 4. ^ "Talvar review: A sharp narrative makes it taut, gripping thriller". Hindustan Times. 2015-10-02. Retrieved 2023-09-28.
Promo interview, fails WP:IS WP:SIGCOV 5. ^ "Alia, Armaan, Aasmaa Are The New Trio In 'Udaariyaan'".
Promo interview, fails WP:IS WP:SIGCOV 6. ^ "Romance and situational comedy truly resonate with me: Alisha Parveen".
Promo interview, fails WP:IS WP:SIGCOV 7. ^ "Alisha Parveen about her mother's reaction on parveen's role in Udaariyaan 2021". Tribuneindia.
Above
Mention of subject in "SCHOOL FRIENDS SEASON 1 REVIEW ", Fails WP:SIGCOV, does not address the subject directly and indepth. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/web-series/reviews/hindi/school-friends/school-friends-season-1/seasonreview/102951821.cms?from=mdr
Brief promo interview, fails WP:IS WP:SIGCOV https://puneprahar.com/securing-a-lead-role-was-actually-my-mothers-dream-says-alisha-parveen-playing-alia-on-colors-udaariyaan/
Exclusive! Promo. fails WP:IS WP:SIGCOV https://www.tellychakkar.com/digital/exclusive-muskurane-ki-wajah-tum-ho-s-alisha-parveen-be-seen-new-amazon-mini-tv-series
Promo interview, fails WP:IS WP:SIGCOV https://www.outlookindia.com/art-entertainment/alisha-parveen-my-mother-instilled-love-of-theatre-within-me-news-311395
Promo interview, fails WP:IS WP:SIGCOV https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/alisha-parveen-on-her-udaariyaan-role-my-character-is-almost-like-my-real-life-nature/articleshow/104377633.cms
BEFORE showwed nothing different from what is above, nothing meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:IS sources are not available showing WP:NACTOR is met; Ping me if independent sources with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth are added to the article.  // Timothy :: talk  01:00, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Mubariz[edit]

Capture of Mubariz (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)

Largely unverifiable, the sole reference doesn't support most of the claims, and there is already a draft for this which can be expanded if it could be an article after all (but then which is written from a WP:NPOV, not this very one-sided account). WP:TNT if this is notable, permanent deletion if not. Fram (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Fram (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. First consideration was a merge to Artak Gabuzyan, but it's already mentioned there, sourced by the same failed reference that only describes Mubariz Ibrahimov's funeral and makes no mention of Gabuzyan. I can find nothing online in RS about the incident or about Gabuzyan himself in English or Armenian, apart from the one source cited from News.am to verify that he won the military award for valour. War propaganda abounds online from both sides in the conflict, and apparently Ibrahimov has all sorts of unverifiable claims made about his military career, so we need to proceed with caution on the sources. Wikishovel (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page creator, based on the fact that he created Gabuzyan's page and this page and the language used in both, seems to have a personal connection with Gabuzyan. The reference hardly supports the article. Jebiguess (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this, there isn't any proof that this operation ever existed, the grammar is extremely bad, Mubariz Ibrahimov wasn't a commander, just a regular soldier, and it is extremely biased with words used like "saving Artsakh" "invasion from Azerbaijan" and links to Artak Gabuzyan. Also, the guy that made this is an hardcore Armenian nationalist who only made this article to post it on TikTok (Link to the video: https://www.tiktok.com/@armen.patriot/video/7298408325266378016, https://www.tiktok.com/@armen.patriot/video/7297718441924988192) and he also made another article similar to this one.
So yea, delete Salamghardash (talk) 17:17, 9 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 23:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valve cover racing[edit]

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

No independent, reliable sourcing/coverage for this. Plenty of youtube videos, event announcements, and enthusiast forum posts, but no indication that it's a thing that's been reported in news/secondary sources. Suggest merger to Pinewood derby or outright deletion. lizthegrey (talk) 20:00, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Leaders Initiative[edit]

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

Completely unsourced aside from one primary source mention in the Bush speech. Nothing appears to ever have come of this announced programme. At best, it should redirect to foreign policy under the Bush presidency or US-Iraqi relations articles. At worst it should just be deleted. lizthegrey (talk) 19:51, 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 redirect‎ to Antonia Gordiana. Please feel free to retarget to the son if desired. Daniel (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Junius Licinius Balbus[edit]

Junius Licinius Balbus (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)

Junius Licinius Balbus is claimed to be a father of Gordian III by notoriously unreliable Historia Augusta, and nothing else is known about him. This article also says that Balbus was a grandson of Q. Servilius Pudens and his wife Ceionia Plautia, a sister of emperor Lucius Verus, but I cannot find a source for this information (Historia Augusta indeed claims that the Gordiani and Nerva-Antonine dynasty were related, but via Gordian I's mother and wife rather than his son-in-law). I have Settipani's book, the only source in the article, and he simply says that Balbus is a fictitious person, just like all other relatives of the Gordiani given in the Historia Augusta. Симмах (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not every claim in the Historia Augusta should be regarded as fictitious—in many instances it's borne out by other sources, and for many matters it's the only surviving authority. I'm not aware of any reason why this particular name should be regarded as improbable. That said, the article consists entirely of the man's supposed connections to others—and that can easily be covered in the articles about those persons who are genuinely notable, presumably the Gordians.
As long as he's mentioned there—and it's fine to mention that modern scholars doubt the authenticity of his name, although obviously Gordian III had a father, even if we can't be certain of his name or relationship to anyone else (please avoid the absurd reference here to "an unnamed Roman senator"—all Roman senators had names, even if we don't know what they were), this article can probably be reduced to a redirect to Gordian III or his mother.
Technically that would be a merge rather than a deletion, but that's the appropriate solution, given that the name occurs in antiquity and in scholarship. Wikipedia can't resolve whether he existed under that name, or who else he was related to, but editors may make judgments as to his notability—and given that all we know of him is how he might have been related to other people, he doesn't appear to warrant his own article. P Aculeius (talk) 13:23, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Zujović[edit]

Vladimir Zujović (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:NBASKETBALL - never drafted or won any awards. references linked are all to play statistics in European basketball clubs that do not appear to have attracted secondary sourcing/media attention for player's specific performance in games. lizthegrey (talk) 18:44, 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 delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Planet 9 Studios[edit]

Planet 9 Studios (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)

Routine coverage in unreliable sources. Lacks in-depth coverage per WP:SIRS. Fails WP:NCORP criteria. Anye Etimbia (talk) 17:35, 28 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 28. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 17:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, Technology, Internet, Software, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - This is a bad faith submission from an inexperienced nominator with no prior edit history. I suspect he may have some kind of COI or personal vendetta. This company is one of the pioneers of VRML and online 3D graphics that has been around since the 90s. Unfortunately it is harder to find news articles from the 90s, but there is enough here to meet WP:GNG. they have coverage in Arizona Republic, Honolulu Advertiser, Daily Record, Venture Beat and The San Francisco Examiner.Fbiagent010 (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator only has 5 edits on his account, it sure is weird how he knows how to use AFD and stuff. This might be a sock or some vandal trying to prank random users. SparklyNights 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - almost certainly WP:UPE sockpuppet spam. MER-C 19:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Suspicions about the nominator or the article creator are not valid reasons for keeping or deleting. Commentary on sources and whether they support notability would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge The VentureBeat reference is good, but not seeing additional substantial coverage. Could merge to David Colleen. Flurrious (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Source 1 is fine, 2 and 3 are trivial. Rest seem primary or non-RS, source 9 looked ok but it isn't about this company. I can't find much more for sourcing; this is an older company, coverage seems to be from the early internet era, likely not archived. If we had a few more good sources, I'd reconsider Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikpedia Library doesn't have much, there is a Planet 3 Studios and a Planet TV studios, nothing for Planet 9. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 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 23:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appreneur[edit]

Appreneur (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 with no actual reliable sourcing that reads like OR/an essay. lizthegrey (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lizthegrey (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Technology, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not only is it non-notable, it's blatant plagiarism of Reference 1, with minor re-wordings to avoid detection. I suspect a COI edit at the very least (someone connected to AppClover, the site behind one of the references), and the independence of the other sources is not at all clear. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't believe this commercial puff piece survived undetected for 11 years. Had I seen it when it was created, I might have speedied it as CSD:G11 spam. But at this point, we'll have to go through the AfD process. Owen× ☎ 16:11, 11 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 Fortune (magazine) (ATD). Daniel (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fortune Most Powerful Women Entrepreneurs[edit]

Fortune Most Powerful Women Entrepreneurs (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)

Almost entirely unsourced, no assertions about notability. lizthegrey (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to show notability. Flurrious (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In 2015 [11] the list had actual names, some with links to Wikipedia articles. Not enough to justify a list article though. Anyway, November 2015 someone deleted all of that. Now we have a list that is nothing but links to a website. Dream Focus 08:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, it was I who removed the lists; I trust that my edit summary here was clear enough? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fortune (magazine) – only one citation, which doesn't even support the content of the sentence (the first) to which it is attached, no indication of independent notability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:49, 10 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 23:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Seeman[edit]

Jeff Seeman (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)

Unreferenced biography article that fails notability guidelines for biographies and general notability guidelines. The only mentions about the subject I found in a BEFORE search was this passing mention, Rotten Tomatoes and TVGuide, which are a list of credits and not in-depth coverage of the subject, and an unreliable IMDb source. Tails Wx 17:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Few of the results in Google Books or News appear to be referring to this subject, and those that do are not SIGCOV. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:32, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Epstein (journalist)[edit]

Brian Epstein (journalist) (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, no coverage in secondary sources. I'm not convinced that the documentary he worked on ("3212 Un-Redacted") makes him pass WP:NJOURNALIST, given that it did get some good reviews but not for a sustained period of time. SparklyNights 17:21, 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. ✗plicit 23:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Courcy[edit]

Bob Courcy (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 ice hockey player. Did not play in the NHL or any other top-level league. Several seasons in the minor leagues, and while he did earn First-Team All-Star in the EPHL, that would not be sufficient for notability as per the recent tightening of notability guidelines, and does not meet the threshold of WP:NHOCKEY. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:15, 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 has been withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of chocolate bar brands[edit]

List of chocolate bar brands (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 list has currently over 700 entries (and it looks like it is growing fast) and the vast majority of the items added are not adequatley sourced. Most of these entries are clearly non-notable chocolate bars (most often variants of either notable or even non-notable chocolate bars) and don't have any Wikipedia page.

Even worse, out of the 82 sources used for this list, about half of them are blogs (like [12] or [13]) or commercial websites. And the list is still being expanded without reliable sources despite the tags.

So, I propose, at the very least, to trim the list to remove non-notable items (typically variants or any unsourced/red link entry). They just don't belong to Wikipedia. Please note that there is also a List of bean-to-bar chocolate manufacturers page. Zach (Talk) 14:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Zach (Talk) 14:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn by nominator - It is quite clear that there is a consensus to keep this list on Wikipedia. And despite some issues, things seem to go in the right direction. Given that this nomination has generated some discussion (including from myself), I think I will leave the closure to another editor. Zach (Talk) 09:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A chocolate manufacturer is not the same as a chocolate bar. The list absolutely needs all of the individual flavors and varieties trimmed, but a list of chocolate bars seems like a perfectly notable topic as a subarticle of Chocolate bar. Reywas92Talk 21:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This list is usefull & interesting, all the flavours & variates should be cut out but the brands should stay. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Bean-to-bar manufacturers is not the same as chocolate bar brands. "A bean-to-bar company produces chocolate by processing cocoa beans into a product in-house, rather than merely melting chocolate from another manufacturer. Some are large companies that own the entire process for economic reasons; others are small- or micro-batch producers and aim to control the whole process to improve quality, working conditions, or environmental impact." Not all large companies do that. There was a discussion about Kit Kat that reached a consensus that no variants were to be listed based on at least 300 in Japan alone that are seasonal, limited edition, and regional. Coldbolt: ignored that and added them. His reasoning was WP:OTHERCONTENT. It's easy to bring up references, but it's also on you to help reference things. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, surely meets WP:NLIST. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, kind of strange to nominate a page like this which was created all the way back in 2008. It has 20K pageviews over the last 30 days, so useful information to lots of people. Flavour variants were added over the years but with the older list there was no clear distinction between the bar brand and flavour variants. The way it is set up now makes sure there is this clear distinction. Also, it is lots of work to source 700 entries, but over the years new sources are added. Coldbolt (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But you and Mr. C.C. still added plenty of items without any source ([14], [15]) despite the page being tagged. This list is only getting worse with time. How do you expect any improvement? Zach (Talk) 11:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And the few sources you cited seem to be blogs ([16])... Zach (Talk) 11:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zacharie Grossen, you're making excuses to not make any improvements. Wikipedia, as you know, is a collaborative effort and many, many lists are dynamic lists and will never satisfy particular standards for completeness. That's why you and others need to help out with editing and adding references. Yes, it's big undertaking, but as long as we chip away at it, it can slowly be done. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, without prejudice to stubifying or tightening inclusion criteria, under SK1 unless a rationale for deletion rather than trimming entries is proposed. Zach, I'm going to start a new talk page section on inclusion criteria, your call as to further dispute resolution processes are required, but AfD does not really have the competence to act on this matter as it is out of scope. The closest equivalent would probably be an RfC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alpha3031, discussions for inclusion criteria have been held. The current criteria that is being discussed is the minimum percentage of chocolate needed in a bar to qualify as a chocolate bar (milk, white, and dark chocolate). Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The main problem is that 2/3 of the list is completely unverifiable (no citation, no link). This list fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Zach (Talk) 10:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The contentious material has been boldly removed. If the main contributors to the list (@Mr. C.C.: and @Coldbolt:) are ok with that, then I'll be happy to retract my nomination for deletion. Zach (Talk) 18:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not okay with it, keep going on with your nomination, nominating this list is stupid anyway. Not putting in so many hours on something in Wikipedia ever again. Have a nice day. Coldbolt (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coldbolt: Some of the material might be recycled and put where it is appropriate (like manufacturer articles), if *adequately* cited. So, you did not necessarily waste your time. But you need to take time to better understand WP:RS, to ...avoid wasting time in the future. Zach (Talk) 17:24, 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 merge‎ to Arkham. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miskatonic University[edit]

Miskatonic University (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)

Although I own a Miskatonic University t-shirt, sadly, I cannot find a shred of WP:GNG relevance in this article. It's a pure plot summary, referenced to various works of fiction, and my BEFORE is not finding much (or anything) in terms of literary analysis of this fictional entity (just various plot summaries and/or works of fiction mentioning it - although I canno access this, a bit of an oddity, looks like an academic article that appears to treat this entity as real? Some sort of hoax?). WP:ATD suggests a redirect to Arkham might be done (not sure if there is anything here to merge, maybe some referenced parts of the plot summary?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Education. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can ignore that oddity. I just read the introduction to that (special) issue. It's not meant to be factual. It is an "imaginative essay". Uncle G (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Arkham - The Arkham article already covers the university briefly, but some additional information and the reliable sources from this article can be moved over there to beef up its coverage. Neither of the articles are very long by themselves, and as the university and the city it is located in are pretty intrinsically linked together, it makes sense in a WP:NOPAGE kind of way to cover them both in a single article to provide the most context to readers. My thoughts are to create a sub-section at Arkham about the university with the sourced info from this article on its role in the stories, ditch the "Faculty" charts but mention a couple of the notable examples from them in the prose. Rorshacma (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As a complete Wiki newbie and only a part time HPL fan, I can only approach this with the zeal of the woefully ignorant - so here I go.

    While Miskatonic University is not a primary character, the sheer number of times and places it is referenced in HPL stories, by other authors, and in horror fandom lend it some notability. I agree that this page is somewhat light on unique and notable facts. As a major Arkham institution, moving this content into the City's page is more logical than deletion.

    I have to disagree about removing the staff lists. That is the kind of flavor and depth that needs to be fleshed out, not snipped. AmishBill (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Have a read of User:Uncle G/On notability. Notability isn't about numbers. It's about depths and provenances of independent documentation by the world at large. So what one looks for to determine notability is published literary analyses of a Lovecraftian plot element. After all, it's Lovecraft. If it's notable, people will have published commentaries/papers/theses/whatnot on it coming out of their ears. Start with the Lovecraft Lexicon cited as a source right there in the article. How in-depth is that on this subject? Uncle G (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge per WP:ATD. WP:BEFORE shows that the subject doesn't have much reception, and does not meet WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you manage to check what the Lovecraft Lexicon says and how much depth it goes into on this subject? (It turns out that there's a Lovecraftian Lexicon as well. I don't have either, though.) Uncle G (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • We cannot assume that WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES. Those Lexicons may or may not cover this topic in dpeth. Per WP:V, the responsibility for showing that those sources do this rests on the article's authors or those who want to rescue this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • But, conversely, we don't need to even claim that there may be sources when the article cites them and says that there are; and we can ask the people who are throwing "BEFORE" around whether they, as part of the reasonable search for sources, which is what "BEFORE" is claiming, checked out the source that's handily pointed to by the article and doesn't require searching for stuff at all. Did you look at it? How in-depth is it? Uncle G (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • The responsibility to show that the topic is notalbe, per WP:V, lies with the author/those wanting to keep this. The author cited that source, entry on Miskatonic valley, for etymology, and on the university, for a brief plot summary. They did not cite any analysis. Whether they did not do it on purpose or because the source has nothing else is not relevant. Unless someone can improve this article, we cannot assume that improvement is possible, simply because some sources have been shown to mention this topic. Until someone finds such a source, the topic is not notable. Notability has to be proven, not assumed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, the responsibility lies with the people going around saying "BEFORE" that they haven't been so boneheaded to as to completely ignore a source cited for them to look at, an entry named "Miskatonic University" in some Lovecraft Lexicon book, in their suppposed "reasonable search for sources beforehand". There's a source there, found, cited, and ready, for the past 17 years. Putting our fingers in our ears and chanting "until someone finds a source" is clearly trying to pretend that a source isn't there. The person who wrote the content cited the source, over and over in several edits such as Special:Diff/39062007 back in 2006. The duty is for us — you, saying that you've "BEFORE" — to look at it. Anything else is evasion. Uncle G (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              Nope. Which is why your view on notability is an essay and not the policy... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the lexica that need to be checked out, JSTOR 26868485, which has this, indicates that there are going to be a fair number of other works needed to be read and checked, too. Uncle G (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Arkham - while I initially expected this to easily be notable, consultations of volumes of forbidden tomes... I mean reliable sources did not come up with more than secretive whispers... I mean trivial mentions of the subject. It is mostly discussed with regards to Arkham, the town in which it resides, such as the entry in The Dictionary of Imaginary Places. The article itself does not demonstrate the idea that such sources exist either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG. One of the most significant recurring features of Lovecraft's stories and the subsequent Cthulhu Mythos. Plenty of coverage in works about the mythos (not including the stories themselves). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to tell us which of those works met SIGCOV and go beyond plot summary? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Arkham per nom and others. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:00, 12 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Mahan[edit]

Ted Mahan (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:COLLATH / WP:NBASIC. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Michigan. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd think being the head coach of a huge Division 1 school in Michigan State for 10 years is fairly notable...-- Yankees10 17:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article blatantly fails WP:COLLATH, so it is judged by WP:NBASIC, which states: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. I am not finding that this article meets that criteria. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did find this but I'd like to see more than local coverage. Delete per nom. Keep per the sources found below, passes NBASIC and GNG. Tails Wx 17:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Someone who served 20 years as a head college sports coach, especially at a major program in a major sport, will very often be notable, and Mahan does not seem to be an exception, see plenty of coverage, e.g. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] etc. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject appears to clearly pass the BASIC and GNG per the sources provided in the discussion. Let'srun (talk) 04:45, 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

El Politigato[edit]

El Politigato (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)

Tagged by Whiteguru over a year ago noting little notability. Poor sources used with little to no significant coverage of just another YouTuber. WMrapids (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Comics and animation, Internet, and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG, subject's career is not limited to YouTube and is also an university professor who has participated in public events. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many YouTubers participate in public events, so that doesn't make them any more notable. Also, this is a Spanish-speaking YouTuber, yet there is not even a corresponding article on Spanish Wikipedia, raising additional doubts about notability. WMrapids (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:WHATABOUT and WP:OTHERLANGS. GNG is the basic threshold of notability for an article, it is met here, and the creator's career is not limited to YouTube. Whether he has an article in the French, German, or Italian Wikipedias here is irrelevant to determine his notability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, well let’s review the sources:
    • El Estímulo - Explains his notability is for going viral in WhatsApp and Facebook for making anti-Chavista videos. Not promising.
    • La Patilla 1 - An opposition website with the title “an audacious feline that surpasses the intelligence of the oficialista”. Pretty POV. Promotes the creator's Facebook page.
    • Producto - Only a passing mention in the article amongst a list of other Internet personalities.
    • Efecto Cocuyo 1 - Opposition website promoting their “Cocuyo Festival” and promoting a YouTuber that supports their narrative.
    • La Patilla 2 - An opposition website promoting since-removed videos and again promoting their Facebook page.
    • Efecto Cocuyo 2 - Again, a passing mention of the YouTuber from their own event.
    Overall, this appears to be nothing more than promotional in nature and does not prove notability whatsoever. WMrapids (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Poor and misleading description (especially the "opposition website" descriptions, we've long been over this), but at this point it's just better for other users to give their positions. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like the analysis above is hitting quite a few arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, while ignoring all of these sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 21 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! 04:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: source 2 is a decent source (green per sourcebot), rest aren't in RS or trivial coverage. I can only find brief mentions of his cartoons, some connection to crypto. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean they aren't reliable sources? Most of them are major and reliable outlets in Venezuela. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcebot hasn't identified them as green for reliable; I have no experience with media in the country, so rely on sourcebot. Oaktree b (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b could you please provide a link to this sourcebot you are using? User:Oaktree b/common.js indicates nothing called "sourcebot", and the only ones I can find have been blocked for years (User:Sourcebot, User:SourceBot) so I may be looking in the wrong place, or they may not be updated. I'd like to understand the criteria used by whatever script you're using, as there seems to be a problem. That a dated script doesn't know about Venezuelan sources wouldn't be surprising. I use User:Headbomb/unreliable, which is actively maintained. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion thread here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2023_October_26#What's_the_bot_called_that_identifies_sources? Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using the second bot described. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that helps; Novem Linguae could you provide some guidance as to the use of your script in this discussion about Venezuelan sources ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. Yes, User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter is a user script that highlights sources by color. It incorporates Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources, but the snapshot is probably a year or two old. Looking at the current page, it is also missing links to the websites. Maybe I should just delete Venezuelan reliable sources until links to the websites can be added in a column in their tables. I need to know the website's domain name in order to scrape the page for CiteHighlighter. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added external links to all the entries at Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources, then re-scraped it just now. CiteHighlighter is up to date now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! You're the best. Oaktree b do you want to take a new look now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source #2 (El Estímulo) is still green. The entry is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Generally reliable sources if you want to take a look and see if you agree with the rationale. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae: Thank you so much for your help. I was about to point out to WP:VENRS, but I was unaware of this bot. Best wishes! --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 8 and 10 are about a film festival, 12 is a RS but it's only a few sentences about him. Just not enough for sourcing to be kept. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now it shows sources 2, 8, 10 and 12 are RS. I'll run them through a Gtranslate before deciding if I need to adjust my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thx, Oaktree b; because it's a humor site, the sources use a lot of colloquialisms and wry humor that might choke Gtranslate; pls inquire if you get weirdness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 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 12:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ventriloquism (disambiguation)[edit]

Ventriloquism (disambiguation) (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 disambiguates two pages, the Ventriloquism (album) page can be easily linked from Ventriloquism in a hatnote, making this redundant — LOOKSQUARE (👤️·🗨️) talk 11:55, 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.

Play money[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ pbp 20:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Play money (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)

Recently User:VickKiang wrote what IMHO amounts to the AfD rationale for this: "Google Books sourcing are very limited and GS refs are mainly about the concept of play money in economics and marketing, but this article is entirely about the tabletop gaming concept, which very few RS discuss in-depth, so I am unconvinced this is a significant game concept." I agree (and double checked with my own WP:BEFORE), and I'll just clarify that IMHO this is not a notable concept. I suggest redirecting this to Glossary of board games. On a side note, there are many board game-related concepts that are likely notable and need to be created (meeple, Game piece (board game), worker placement, game board...). But play money is just one of many types of resources used in games (resources (board games) could be notable too, all we have right now is the bit under Game_mechanics#Resource_management). But play money outside looking nice and being memorable from Monopoly and Game of life is unlikely to be notable separately from other similar type of resources used in games (ex. wood or sheep in Catan, etc.). PS. We also have an article on Monopoly money which probably should be merged with Monopoly (game). IF this is kept, then those two likely need merging. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Economics. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me guess: Over many years, the article writers never found professor Goggin's Goggin 2009, which goes into things like why play money is qualitatively different from gaming chips, and how Monopoly money is different from virtual currency in MMORPGs. Fatsis 2002, p. 170 tells us an interesting thing about board game manufacturers who refused to make games that had play money, too. Is that in there? Uncle G (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Goggin, Joyce (2009). "Fantasy and Finance: Play Money and Computer Game Culture". In Chaney, Joseph R.; McAllister, Ken S.; Ruggill, Judd Ethan (eds.). The Computer Culture Reader. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 125–136. ISBN 9781443806664.
    • Fatsis, Stefan (2002). "The Owners". Word Freak: Heartbreak, Triumph, Genius, and Obsession in the World of Competitive Scrabble. Random House. ISBN 9780224060615.
    • Interesting. The first potentially looks quite useful. Do you have access to it? Could you add something to the article to indicate the topic is notable? I'd be happy to withdraw this nom but right now I cannot access that book (Goggin 2009). The second is in IA ([22]) and the single sentence there that mentions play money is not good enough for WP:SIGCOV - it is quite a trivial mention, I fear. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The concept is common enough and sourceable enough to warrant a stand-alone article. WP:BEFORE didn't seem to be followed by the nominator pbp 16:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources found (and added) by Uncle G put us well over the bar. Hobit (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing. Thank you Uncle G for finding the sources that I missed in my BEFORE and improving the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My argument quoted above was against this being listed a vital article- the sourcing on popularity and impact seems insufficient for a level 5 vital article, It was not about notability, which I have no opinion upon, and I won’t object if this is closed as keep. VickKiang (talk) 07:04, 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 12:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar Qumsiyeh[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sahar Qumsiyeh (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 I cannot find anything to show how she meets WP:NPROF. Deletion discussion in August 2019 closed as delete and no sources since that time establish significant coverage in my opinion. CNMall41 (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I though I found one when doing a WP:BEFORE, but turns out its just a brief about a podcast she was on. There is also an article written by BYU but that is an education pub and not really independent since she is a graduate of and employed by BYU. Nothing else I could find that could really count for GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.I respect the opinions and enjoy the conversation on this topic. Admittedly, Qumsiyeh's significance is debatable--but I would argue it is not conclusively exclusionary. I also think we should step back and remember Wikipedia aims to be a comprehensive and inclusive source of knowledge, reflecting the diversity of human experience. By creating an article for an underrepresented race and woman, we contribute to a more comprehensive representation of individuals and communities worldwide. I found only 22 articles on Wikipedia on Palestinian women. That seems shockingly low. In defense of the sources cited, Qumsiyeh was sought out as an expert on the recent events in Gaza by The Salt Lake Tribune--an independent, 150 year-old newspaper. She is a published author and speaker. She is cited in Google Scholar. If we are debating her merits--and in light of her unique background--the tie should go to the runner and we should err on including more of the diversity of the human experience. Fullrabb (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's aim is governed by policies and guidelines, including those related to notability. I agree we need to have more articles for underrepresented topics, but they need to meet notability guidelines in order to do so unfortunately. Can you provide the sourcing that shows she meets either WP:GNG or WP:NPROF?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possible redirect. Very little sign of WP:NPROF notability, in particular, citation levels are trivial in a medium citation field. I'm not seeing any clear WP:SIGCOV for GNG notability. There are a couple of reviews of the subject's book in some sources that are closely or loosely associated with the LDS church [23][24], but I'd be looking for a second book for NAUTHOR. Redirecting to a stub on the book is a possible alternative to deletion, but I'm uncertain (and a bit skeptical) of the independence of the reviews. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly does not pass WP:PROF. One published book is unlikely to be enough for WP:AUTHOR and I found no published reviews that would help in that regard. No evidence of any other kind of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I dont see a case for notability neither under NAUTHOR nor NPROF, this may simply be a case of WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 14:31, 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! 07:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KRGS[edit]

KRGS (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)

Definitely fails AUD, cannot even find one GNG-qualifying source. Mach61 (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Mach61 (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Trying to pull this out of the morass. The Rifle newspaper, which I cannot find digitized anywhere, would be an immense help. But there was significant press in the 1970s when the station almost lost its license. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Sammi (who did an amazing job updating). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agreed, that's great work in adding references. Mlaffs (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the types of stubs that were still being created in this topic area in 2009 — and which at the time of nomination this article still was — simply wouldn't fly today, in this era where GNG is what matters (and even when the NMEDIA essay was still being asserted as having any relevance at all, it's easy to forget that even its overpresumption of notability still required reliable sources). While not perfect, at least in spirit the expanded article is much closer to what we're looking for these days. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per WP:HEY given the improvements made by Sammi Brie. Flip Format (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject appears to pass the GNG per the added sources. Let'srun (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per what others have already noted. The station has enough sources now. TBH, I'm not even sure why it was nominated for deletion. To me, it sets a dangerous precedent to willy-nilly nominate radio station articles for deletion. There are far more pressing matters on Wikipedia than a radio station from Rifle, Colorado. Milonica (talk) 11:36, 9 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 Title as an ATD. If anyone wants to move to Wiktionary, please feel free - the history is available behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title of authority[edit]

Title of authority (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 searched and it does seem to be a term but not sure if notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as notable, or possibly move to Wiktionary (although I see no harm in leaving it here even if the term is defined there). Appears notable to me, but could also possibly be merged with related articles, and the present article converted to a redirect from an alternative formulation. P Aculeius (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – I'm not seeing the sources that others have apparently found to make them believe the term is notable, either in the article or in my own search, but would certainly change my vote if these were provided. Wiktionary also requires proof that the term is actually used, so I can't support a move there either until there are sources provided. Tollens (talk) 06:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just came across this again and have no idea how I didn't find any usages of this term – there are loads. However, what I can't find is reliable sources talking about the term, only using the term, so I'd support a move to Wiktionary as the term does not appear to have the level of sourcing required by WP:NOTDICT. Tollens (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This doesn't seem to have the relevant coverage for a Wikipedia article. A move to Wiktionary seems reasonable. Let'srun (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Title, which covers all the ground that could be covered under this title. BD2412 T 19:22, 11 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! 07:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yolande Leacock[edit]

Yolande Leacock (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)

Contested prod. I would argue fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Articles exist but are routine coverage not extensive [25], [26] and [27]. Not sure if combined they could be argued to be enough. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Trinidad and Tobago. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete, created by an abusive (now permablocked) user who created numerous other articles on non-notable tennis players. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a low level but notably important player for Trinidad Tobago. She was just in the Trinidad news this October as the first player representing Trinidad Tobago in the Pan American Games. There is enough notability to keep. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first part is not a valid reason to keep. One article is also not sufficient for GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think a "notably important player for Trinidad Tobago" is quite a valid reason. It's why she has been in several articles about her in the Caribbean area. To each his own I guess on importance and we'll see what consensus thinks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. WP:BLP states these articles need strong sourcing, 3 refs in article are a database record, an interview, and an unfound ref that fails V. BEFORE showed database records, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV for a WP:BLP addressing the subject directly and indepth. Keep votes provide no sources to eval or guidelines, nothing more than ILIKEIT.  // Timothy :: talk  16:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete should be notable but I can't find long enough articles about her. [28] is typical of what there is Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 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 draftify‎. There is a clear consensus below not to retain the article in mainspace right now. There was enough support for Draftify (with a couple of dissenting voices) that I have chosen that, both as an ATD and acknowledging this was AfD'ed pretty soon after creation. Make no mistake, this will be a challenge to get it to mainspace-worthy per the consensus below, but a small chance is enough here to go draftify rather than delete. Daniel (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Supreme Court decisions considered the worst[edit]

List of United States Supreme Court decisions considered the worst (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 no definitive criteria to determine which are the "worst" Supreme Court decisions, and thus it fails WP:LISTCRITERIA. Any attempt to classify decisions as "best" or "worst" will rely on the opinions, original research, and point of view of editors. Any politically consequential case has been praised in some media and villified in others. I can think of at least 20 other cases that might belong on this list based on their impact on society, their legal reasoning, and whether I agree with the outcome. Was Roe or Dobbs the worst decision? Certainly depends on who you ask. Was Bush v. Gore the worst decision? Depends on who you ask. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Lists, and United States of America. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Pointless list that, even if we were to try and improve it, would be so needlessly warred over it isn't worth it (especially since it's basically clickbait in Wikipedia article form). Why? I Ask (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify/Userfy. There were less than 30 minutes between creation and AfD here, so AfD is premature. This pretty clearly doesn't belong in mainspace yet though. —siroχo 05:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "Considered" by whom? What are the political, moral, legal, and spiritual list inclusion criteria for making such an evaluation? The case is plainly hopeless, Democrats and Republicans would never agree on any of it. The material is hopelessly unencyclopedic, and will remain so because "considered" and "worst" aren't definable in any general way in this context. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Looks like a subject the user might want to research. No sources are listed. — Maile (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike films (List of films considered the worst), there is nobody out there ranking court decisions. Even renaming it List of controversial United States Supreme Court decisions would be ... controversial, since so many were controversial in their time. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quite subjective and different sources undoubtedly include different decisions and have quite different criteria. Not neutral or notable. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is completely unsourced. And yes, in due time one could probably find citations with this in draftspace, but there's always going to be too much controversy surrounding an article like this. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify/Userfy. I agree with Siroxo:
    • This AfD is premature seeing as it came 30 minutes after the article was created
    • This article isn't ready for main space.
Beyond that, Wikipedia cannot put forth any opinion of its own on these decisions. As others have pointed out, there's no limit to decisions that could be added to this article. Americans won't agree on many of them.
I think the article's creator, Oeoi, is on to something, though. I suggest Oeoi take a look at our Historical rankings of presidents of the United States article. Doing something similar with American Supreme Court decisions would be much appreciated. I suggest they leave a message at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States asking if there are any reputable historical rankings that have been compiled by historians.
If quality lists of best and worst decisions aren't out there, perhaps Oeoi could start an article on rankings of the most consequential decisions.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very positive about the article that this may become in draft space. I added some WikiProjects to the article's talk page to hopefully get some attention. In particular, I noticed there is a WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases; User:Oeoi, I encourage you to reach out to them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases as you continue working on this.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: yeah, essentially my motivation with the article was that I'd keep opening up wikipedia pages about SCOTUS decisions, and one of the sentences in the lead section would say something like "The decision is widely considered the worst in the Supreme Court's history" or "The case is often cited as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time". These seem to me like reasonably sourced, decently verifiable claims, so I decided to compile them into one consistent list. Oeoi (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify as excessive WP:ZEAL (the negative corollary to WP:NORUSH) per Siroxo. I would argue to Oeoi that there is a better article here than there is a list. It would take far more work, but there is a large body of a SCOTUS scholarship with a wide swath of reasons that one or another ruling is 'worse' than others. Three of the four starting entries are about race, but who's to say whether Plessey was in fact worse overall that Bowers or Bakke, or that either had worse reasoning (and impact) than Citizens United? You also then have latitude to explore worst-written, -reasoned, -argued, as well as most misused, misquoted, etc. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now that I am an administrator, I don't have to care about my AfD ratio :^) Anyway, this seems like a clearly notable subject. I don't think it was quite ready for mainspace − mostly because something like this was going to happen — but that's not a good reason for deletion. It's not cleanup. While it's sparse now, this is obviously something that a lot of people have written about, and a topic that would take a long time to write a good article. We gave them a whopping THIRTY MINUTES to do that before completely throwing in the towel on their behalf? Have we no decency? This user has a thousand edits. They are not an oldhead. Seriously: if all of the people writing paragraphs of text into this deletion discussion had spent the same amount of time trying to expand the article, it could have passed a GA by now. There's no reason to think that this is the sum total of what it's possible to write on this subject, and it passes WP:GNG. All you need: 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. jp×g🗯️ 09:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic: glad you're an admin now. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it may be possible to develop an article in a similar manner to List of films considered the worst, but it will take a lot of thinking about scope and curating. The lede in the list of films should provide a good way of developing the list. That all said, this page should not live in mainspace in the state it is in. --Enos733 (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's inappropriate to compare this to the films list. There's longstanding, reliably sourced elements (eg The Razzies) that provide the basis for that list - there's simply nothing comparable that has any scholarly consensus in the law. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that the list of films is not based on any one source (such as the Razzies). The films list starts with this sentence "The films listed below have been cited by a variety of notable critics in varying media sources as being among the worst films ever made." There are scholars who make the claim that a particular case (or cases) is the worst decision by the US Supreme Court, with many scholars pointing to Dred Scott, Plessy, and Korematsu as the worst (and the justices themselves make claims as well). See https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1237&context=mhlr I think it would be a challenge to develop an objective standard for decisions by the Court, perhaps a difficult challenge, but possible. - Enos733 (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "develop an objective standard" ... and who is developing that standard? That's the nub of the problem, this will inevitably be OR/SYNTH. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. There could be a poll of legal scholars. There could be books or articles cataloguing the worst decisions (https://time.com/4056051/worst-supreme-court-decisions/). I am not suggesting it would be easy, and the criteria would be subject to debate - but the same exists for list of the worst films. In that article, there is no one source or survey, nor reliance on aggregation (such as Rotten Tomato scores). - Enos733 (talk) 06:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. This list (technically all lists, but no one seems to remember that) needs a firm and explicit WP:SELCRIT that specifies the threshold of RS to be included. My suggestion would be a fairly high bar: (1) two or more secondary or tertiary sources (2) that are either peer-reviewed or used as mainstream textbooks and (3) that specifically used the term 'worst' and (4) explain specifically why a given case is or is not worst. It just is not hard to find good sources for this. Shake the gScholar tree and 41k fall out for Scott v Sandford alone. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I went ahead and AFD'd it quickly as I continue to believe that there is no amount of effort that could save the article. Some WP:RS list that Roe v. Wade (supporting abortion) is among the worst; other WP:RS list that Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (opposing abortion) is the worst. Would this page list both? Neither? Every other case that the Washington Post editorial board has listed as the worst? I continue to believe that the only way to accomplish this task would be to list "Decisions considered the worst by The Washington Post", "Decisions considered the worst by the New York Times", etc. Otherwise almost every important case has supporters and detractors. We don't have a "Worst Elections Ever" page for similar reasons; it's simply too subjective.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, why not list both of them? We aren't Conservapedia (or Libipedia for that matter); it seems to me perfectly easy to reconcile that some people consider anti-abortion rulings terrible and some other people consider pro-abortion rulings terrible. An article like this could easily be written to be more than a sortable table, and have a section that went into more depth on polarizing decisions like these; some discretion would be necessary, sure, but I don't think that's a reason to prevent it from being tried at all. jp×g🗯️ 10:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because there are hundreds of potentially "worst" cases; every politically-interesting case has a winner and a loser. Guns, abortion, voting, class actions, water, endangered species, border disputes between states, immigration, administrative deference, judicial review... every decision has someone who thinks it was the "worst." It's the same as for List of elections considered the worst: that page is red because every single time about half the people think it was terrible. Same for List of politicians considered the worst; the closest is Historical rankings of presidents of the United States and even that is borderline (unsourced tag from 2019 and talk page commentary about WP:NPOV and WP:OR). 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That implies that 'worst' means 'least popular'. There are legitimate, scholarly reasons in RS why a court decision is considered 'bad', usually based on deeply disingenuous legal reasoning. Examples like Plessy, Adkins and Gobitis were so egregious that they became symbols of bad decision-making and eventually were overturned by the court itself. Dred Scott and others led to legal or even constitutional changes to overcome them. There are wide bodies of work on exactly why those are just plain awful from the POV of the law itself, even if at the time they were popular (Plessy, in particular, was revered -- in fact, it is usually popular decisions that produce abysmal jurisprudence). Those are the cases (and RS) that I think belong in an article with this title. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a great deal of opinion being expressed here, but no reliable source analysis. That's instructive precisely because the inherent nature of this subject makes it impossible to reconcile reliable sources without entering into SYNTH/OR territory. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's entirely possible to construct a list of SCOTUS decisions that only reliable academic sources have described as "the worst" or as "considered the worst". I think Last1in is describing some steps editors might undertake to write such an article from RS without synthesis, using likely examples to illustrate, not directly suggesting that we synthesize such conclusions ourselves. There would be no need to insert any OR or non-NPOV opinion into the list itself as part of this process. —siroχo 05:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How Did They Get It So Wrong? ... or to put it another way, why this will always be a rabbit hole of OR. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is, quite literally, the opposite of what I proposed and what siroxo wrote. Neither OR nor SYNTH is required to quote reliable, secondary or tertiary, mainstream-scholarly sources that discuss deeply flawed decisions by SCOTUS. As an example, sources as wide-ranging as Levinson (Yale), Gräber (UNC), Farber (Berkeley), the Journal of Politics, and plenty of constitutional law textbooks argue whether Scott v Sandford is really and truly worst or merely terrible jurisprudence. The 09-Nov-23 broadcast of Jeopardy! (US) included the following clue, The case of this enslaved man v. Sandford is often called the worst Supreme Court decision ever. And before you pounce, I am not suggesting Jeopardy! as an RS, simply as an indicator that this is a valid subject for an article supported by the academics like those mentioned in the preceding sentence. I think, given a chance, this could be an exceptional article if we include RS-driven explanations of the various ways that different cases come to be seen as the worst. There is simply no policy basis to delete this list. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at Historical rankings of presidents of the United States for an example of ways to organize a list like this. WE could have a section "Fox News rankings of Supreme Court decisions" and another for "New York Times rankings of Supreme Court decisions". Wikipedia would not be drawing a judgement - it would just present others' rankings in tabular form.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That there's some identifiable agreement over one or two cases as the "worst" (sic) is purely relevant for *those* cases only. It does not make a list. One cannot extrapolate a supposed consensus over one or two cases into a list. That's the funademntal problem here, to do anything more involves OR/SYNTH. Just because Fox News publishes a list of anything does not make the list in and of itself notable, it would require *secondary* sources commenting/analysising the existence of that list to make it notable. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So Goldsztajn, what do you think of the Historical rankings of presidents of the United States article when you look at it? My thinking it to draftify this Supreme Court article and let its author work on it to get it towards something like the Presidents article.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At the outset, let me acknowledge the good faith contributions of everyone here and the tone of the discussion, I grealy appreciate everyone's efforts. Thanks @A. B. for asking me directly, I hope my reply (and all my contributions) keep with the spirit I've highlighted.
    I'm wary of comparisons with any other topics because this avoids the core problem - the question of reliable sourcing to satisfy notability criteria for this topic. Nevertheless, what I would say is that in the presidents article what stands out is the presence of multiple reliable sources that *rank* presidents - this is especially significiant in terms of the debate here. First, those sources provide us with specific heirarchy that allows us to carry our comparison without overt synthesis. Second, there's a literature which compares and critiques the systems of ranking - so not only do we have the ranking itself, but we have source analysis that provides notability for the ranking system as a class. It's both of those elements that are completely lacking here. At best we have some divergent articles commenting that different people with different ideological perspectives take different views on what are the "worst" or "less bad" or "really not good" decisions. To reinforce this point: there's a sea of qualitative difference for the construction of a comparative list when sourcing provides us with ranked items versus sourcing that is labelled with the amorphous "worst". Yes, we can possibly find reliable source agreement that there is some scholarly consensus on what is regarded at the "worst" decision, but beyond that everything is SYNTH and OR. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Goldsztajn, for your very thoughtful reply.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clear violation of WP:LISTCRITERIA here, as any case can be derided by a certain segment of the population. Let'srun (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete. I think it would be impossible to get an objective and general list, rather than an incoherent lumping together of hit-pieces on opinions with impacts disfavored by specific groups. BD2412 T 19:21, 11 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, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Costin[edit]

Alexandru Costin (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 football player. Article recently deprodded. No indication of notability nor can significant coverage be established. Mbdfar (talk) 05:01, 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 redirect‎ to List of Sin City yarns#Hell and Back. Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hell and Back (comics)[edit]

Hell and Back (comics) (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 cant find enough to support WP:SIGCOV Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:49, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tooraj Khamenehzadeh[edit]

Tooraj Khamenehzadeh (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 page (once deleted before) seems unsalvageable. An editor with a COI was responsible for most of the information in here (now blocked), and it would take a massive amount of research and rewriting to turn this into a suitable article. I propose deletion, and should this person become notable in the future, let someone unconnected with the subject be responsible for creating the article. Styx (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Photography, Iran, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've checked most of the sources, and they are just this person's name mentioned once, typically as just part of a list of people, with no significant coverage of this person. Elspea756 (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All I am finding in a BEFORE search is social media, his own website and primary sources. The current article sourcing is just as bleak. Does not pass WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. Seems like promo. Netherzone (talk) 13:40, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatica[edit]

Grammatica (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 parser generator does not appear to be notable. I've only found two secondary sources (1 and 2) which discuss it, and only in passing. StereoFolic (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. StereoFolic (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found other [29] sources that mention this parser generator, but not WP:SIGCOV. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 17:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete + Comment. Similarly to the previous two editors, I found little sourcing to indicate that this software is notable as a parser generator. In doing research into the topic, I found many similar parser generator stubs with varying degrees of notability which would likely qualify for deletion as well. However, I believe if might also be feasible for some of those stubs are merged with this list and this article to create a single "Parser Generator"/"Compiler-compiler"/"Complier Generator" page. KJGinger (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed; I stumbled into this article from work I've been doing clearing out non-notable entries in Comparison of parser generators. I agree many of those stubs are similar situations to Grammatica here, but thought it would be good to float this article first for a little precedence before suggesting a bunch of similar articles. It seems like parser generators are a popular type of project for people and institutions to build, and many have been added to Wikipedia (often with COI) despite pretty clear lack of notability. StereoFolic (talk) 19:04, 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) Let'srun (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Porter Byrum[edit]

Porter Byrum (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 appear to be notable. Sourced primarily from obituaries and two WP:ROUTINE articles on the sale of a development the subject sold. glman (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep seems to meet WP:GNG with sources in article. Notability can become apparent on death. Here's an additional source [30] —siroχo 09:46, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Blake[edit]

Sophie Blake (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:NBIO and WP:GNG. BEFORE search shows this, but this source (Daily Mail) is unreliable. There's this too, but that reference won't satisfy notability guidelines either. Other than that, nothing else found. Tails Wx 02:35, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dewal Pratiharas[edit]

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

There is not a single reliable source that backed the context that Dewal Pratihar is a clan/tribe or subgroup of any Rajput community. So this article clearly meet the criteria for deletion that is clearly based on Fringe theories and general research that lack of the general notability and even before article was entirely based on poorly unreliable sources that failed the WP:V and even there is not a single quotes provided for the verification. Fancy vißes (call) 01:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with the previous comment, and besides the content and lack of references, the poor grammar is an embarrassment to Wikipedia as well. Ira Leviton (talk) 11:34, 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 merge‎ to Salem Radio Network#Over-the-air networks. Liz Read! Talk! 00:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Singing News Radio[edit]

Singing News Radio (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 as a music format due to a lack of significant, independent coverage. A possible WP:ATD is redirecting this to Salem Radio Network#Over-the-Air networks Let'srun (talk) 01:16, 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 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! 00:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sindis Polozhani[edit]

Sindis Polozhani (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 has earned at least six caps for the North Macedonia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:51, 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 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! 19:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hwem[edit]

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

No sources and I cannot find any reference to this article on Google. Listed artists all have redlinks. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:22, 28 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! 00:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Mentioned on Discogs; apparently this label has been defunct since 2008 and their website is no longer registered. I hate to see a niche recording label disappear from history, but they apparently never made enough impact to be covered in any searchable secondary sources, thus failing WP:NCORP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article was written by an account claiming to be Thomas Toivonen (AfD discussion) who also wrote Kaburu (AfD discussion), one of the things listed in this article, so it's likely going to be one of those cases where the subject was only ever documented by its creator, writing directly in Wikipedia content that couldn't ever be verifiable because it wasn't documented by the world at large, exactly as one shouldn't. Uncle G (talk) 02:42, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sacol[edit]

Sacol (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)

Single source used ([31]), does not appear to be notable because of this. Unless more secondary sources are presented, this should be nuked and redirected to List of islands of Zamboanga City. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Philippines, and Islands. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:GEONATURAL as a named populated island that is home to multiple barangays (i.e. information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist) —siroχo 09:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a populated island with historic and modern importance in the area. Note that there are also some news articles about its association with local terrorist and bandit groups fleeing away from the law but I think those are just isolated cases. --Lenticel (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Inhabited islands are clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 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 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! 00:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Quirós[edit]

Hazel Quirós (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, a Costa Rican footballer, earned at least eight caps for her national team about a decade ago. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:36, 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. given consensus, improvements to article and the nominator's withdrawal of nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 19:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive approaches to grammar[edit]

Cognitive approaches to grammar (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)

has been tagged as possible original research for a long time Chidgk1 (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn by nominator - thanks for improving Chidgk1 (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Biology. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Unsourced, but Gscholar turns up several uses of the term. I'd TNT this if someone wants to do a rewrite. It's been tagged for a decade now. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is subject to the same ambiguities handled in the article on Cognitive linguistics, which it alternatively could redirect to. It's not adding anything beyond explicating what cognitive and grammar can mean. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 12:11, 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! 23:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is essentially five "See also"s (generative grammar, cognitive linguistics, construction grammar, cognitive grammar, and word grammar, by order of appearance); the understandable assertion The basic claim here is that grammar is conceptualization (emphasis original); and the less understandable statement an autonomous mental faculty that it is governed by mental processes operating on mental representations of different kinds of symbols that apply only within this faculty (confusion added).
    I think our best course of action might be to Navboxify or Categorify and Soft delete the article Keep per User:Uncle G below. One inbound link, from Cognitive grammar. Folly Mox (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Switched 04:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, find references, rewrite, and expand. It is a notable topic though the article needs considerable work. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 07:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without sources, this is just personal reflection. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not personal reflection, JzG. Bookworm857158367 is right, and Oaktree b's TNT isn't even necessary.

    Interestingly, it is close to what a couple of Routledge encyclopaedias, which I just checked, say about the subject. The problem here is that this started off in 2005 as rubbish, got edited to counter the rubbish a fortnight after its creation, and has been largely untouched, apart from removing the what-this-article-used-to-say-is-wrong part, in the 18 years since.

    It's a fairly obscure and technical linguistics subject; and, sadly, the only editor who apparently knew anything at all about the subject was 130.88.187.141 (talk · contribs) who hasn't edited Wikipedia since 2005. Xe is the one who added the text that aligns with what the Routledge encyclopaedias have to say.

    Evans 2010a, p. 47 and Newby 2013, p. 625 show where to go with this subject, and Broccias 2008, which covers Langacker's cognitive grammar as just one of its three models, shows how deep the subject goes. (Yes Folly Mox, professor Broccias also covers Goldberg's and Croft's construction grammar so this article is right to link to them.) This really needs expert attention, but it isn't random rubbish, and hasn't been since 2005; and there (very clearly!) is scope for a lot of expansion. As a remarkably on-point example of how an encyclopaedia can be expanded on this subject, Vyvyan Evans, author of the first aforementioned Routledge encyclopaedia article, expanded it to book length (Evans 2010b), and cognitive approaches to grammar is the whole of part 3, chapters 14 to 21.

    I wonder who it was, 18 years ago at the University of Manchester, that set this article on the right path.

    Uncle G (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Evans, Vyvyan (2010). "Cognitive Linguistics". In Cummings, Louise (ed.). The Routledge Pragmatics Encyclopedia. Routledge. ISBN 9781135214579. Cognitive linguistic practice can be divided into two main areas: cognitive semantics and cognitive (approaches to) grammar.
    • Newby, David (2013). "Pedagogical grammar". In Byram, Michael; Hu, Adelheid (eds.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning (2 ed.). Routledge. ISBN 9781136235542.
    • Broccias, Cristiano (2008). "Cognitive approaches to grammar". In Kristiansen, Gitte; Achard, Michel; Dirven, René; Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives. Applications of Cognitive Linguistics [ACL]. Vol. 1. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 9783110197761.
    • Evans, Vyvyan; Green, Melanie (2018). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Routledge. ISBN 9781317954354.
    • You have not really touched on how it relates to the article Cognitive linguistics, which is explicitly the subject of the Evans 2010-article, and the book of the Broccias-article. The articles you mention seem to cover a lot of what is already in the Cognitive linguistics-article, to the point that I think any expansion should happen there (hency a redirect vote). In any case, they should make it able to at least somewhat distinguish these two articles from each other. Do the sources you mention support the text of Cognitive approaches to grammar stating that Chomsky's generative grammar is such an approach? Note that Cognitive grammar is the only article that links to Cognitive approaches to grammar. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 11:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The quote from Evans 2010a should have made this amply clear, as well as what I said about the way that Evans 2010b is structured. This is one of the two main areas of cognitive linguistics, Vyvyan Evans outright tells you. Uncle G (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking of suggesting a redirect to cognitive grammar, but the new sources from Uncle G bring me over to keep, though without prejudice to any editorial shuffling around of the content that people might think appropriate. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I think there is a rough consensus to Keep this article but I'm reluctant to close a discussion as Keep that relies on some hypothetical editor at some point in time improving this article. Is anyone volunteering? If not, and this article was Redirected, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as an uninvolved editor reading through what has been said above, there certainly seems to be a strong case for this article to exist (though it's current quality is perhaps not the best). Keep the tag up for maintenance and we can see if anyone knowledgeable in the subject comes by to improve the article. Styx (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the tags have been up since 2009 - how much longer should we wait and see if anyone knowledgeable in the subject comes by to improve the article? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit tonight. Will work on it tomorrow. Styx (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I withdraw request - not sure how to close this technically Chidgk1 (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately with other delete recommendations it mustn't be technically closed yet. But the closer will take your withdrawal as a recommendation to keep. —siroχo 08:59, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_November_4&oldid=1184892080"