Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 10 February 12 >

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 keep‎. Snowing. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk • stalk • she/they) 18:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GammaFax[edit]

GammaFax (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)

Very short page, only just the lead. Non-notable product. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Probably notable, but this is a stub that needs more. [1] and [2] are both fairly extensive coverage of this computer peripheral. Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per sources presented here and in the article. Other sources:
    InfoWorld, volume 8, issue 35, 1.9.1986, p. 9.
    InfoWorld, volume 12, issue 32, 6.8.1990, pp. 59, 62, 63, 66, 70, 71. (comparison of several products)
    PC Mag, 27.1.1987, volume 6, number 2, p. 36.
    PC Mag, 28.6.1988, volume 7, number 12, pp. 190, 193, 198.
I will add this poor article to my to-do list (note playing video games takes too much of my free time). Pavlor (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I would argue that by virtue of it being the first personal computer fax board, it meets WP:GNG. GSK (talk • edits) 15:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Significant, in-depth coverage in multiple mainstream secondary sources cited above more than meets WP:NPRODUCT. Owen× ☎ 22:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Credible claim to notability backed up by a few sources. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see many non-trivial sources which can be used. Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2024 (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 00:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy Club[edit]

Anarchy Club (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)

They exist and there is some basic coverage. I am not convinced it is enough to meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 11 February 2024 (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 Badak LNG. We have seen a lot of article deletions through PRODs on gas fields this month. Should some of them be restored and merged as well? Just thought I'd raise the question. Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Badak gas field[edit]

Badak gas field (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 seems to be no consensus on the notability of gas fields. I'm not even sure if they are geographic features or built structures. I lean toward the former. This one seems to be about the middle of the road in terms how many sources a gas field has.

Google wise this has nothing but primary sources and they are all, wiki mirrors, or wiki type sites, trade journals and smattering of other things that just seem primary to me. Looking at books, there are mentions. Mostly trivial coverage. Just a tiny few (my opinion of course) might move the needle on notability. I don't see anything in the policy that says these don't have to meet WP:GNG. I don't think it does, but I need more than just my opinion to keep going.

I'd like to have a discussion to settle this, so that I can go about the business of sorting through these and getting rid of the non notable ones. I've asked the prod removers multiple times to provide me with feed back as to why they are notable. The argument seems to be, "they are notable because they have google hits." I'm not casting a vote by submitting this, I will vote with everyone else in the discussion. James.folsom (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks for bringing this to a wider group for discussion, James. I hope to give a more thoughtful response in a few days when I'm not tied up. I may also put some broader comments about gas fields in general on this AfD's talk page if I get the time. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I had a long think on this. All the sources that might be used for this article are written by the petroleum industry. I just don't think those sources are independent. Note that I declined to vote when I brought this here.James.folsom (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect I couldn't find any reliable independant sources that mention it apart from one from Reuters, and that one is about the processing facility. With that in mind, delete the article or potentially redirect it to Badak LNG since that has information about who is using the field and what's happening to it. Shaws username (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge I think that A. B. has a point, it's not reasonable to expect the sources to be entirely devoid of links to the petrolium industry, and as long as they're reputable they can be used. I still don't think that there's enough to merit it's own article and given the heavy link with the Badak LNG plant redirecting and moving the information there makes sense to me. Shaws username . talk . 00:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Read the ref that goes with the article. It cites a whole chapter in a history of major gas fields. The chapter is paywalled but establishes notability. The free abstract alone is long and sufficient to support an article. To me, this is open-and-shut.

In addition, there are many journal articles that are paywalled but point to notability. I’d have cited them, too, but the abstracts weren’t especially useful and I couldn’t read the paywalled stuff. I’m not sure they count here but they do reinforce that this was a very big deal back in the day before business news was archived online. This field employed many thousands over time. It absorbed many hundreds of millions (in today’s dollars) in capital investment. It produced even more money in profits. This was one of the top producers, globally, in its day. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All those sources are primary sources, WP:GNG wants secondary sources, and it wants independent sources. I would like to see arguments around whether primary sources and secondary sources from the petroleum industry are independent of the subject of the gas field to be used to establish notability. James.folsom (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; I assert these are secondary sources. Refereed journals and publication with editorial supervision meet WP:RS whether or not they're associated with the oil and gas industry or not. For a similar case, note that physicists at national laboratories publish journal articles about work done by those labs; we don't deprecate those. We use journal articles written by chemists and pharmacists funded by the drug industry if they're published in reputable journals.
If others doubt with what I'm saying, I encourage them to do Google Scholar and Wikipedia library searches for themselves and see what they think. (See the AfD talk page for comments on doing these gas field searches). --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes peer reviewed journals meet WP:RS. And yes, as such can be use to write articles. What you say is try. But you are ignoring the fact that RS≠secondary source, these are apples and oranges. WP:primary defines those sources as primary. Establishing notability of a subject is a different standard. WP:GNG specifically says this needs sufficient secondary sources to establish notability and merit it's own article. However, there are some maybe secondary sources for this if you look at google books, but they are published by the petroleum community and they are few. My actual question is around whether those are secondary, and independent as well as reliable. That is what counts. Those primary sources can never do the job, they only can be used as sources of material for an otherwise notable subject.

In general, regardless of the nits I'm picking at; Wikipedia is meant to be general interest for the general public. These petroleum stubs are only of interest to a very niche audience, and don't fit the mission of Wikipedia. Not to mention the fact, that the audience that would want to know anything about these would seek out upto date reliable information that is provided elsewhere. While, these are usually a decade out of date. Additionally, Wikipedia has too few editors willing to work on articles, and nobody is ever going to expand these, even if they could. James.folsom (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the larger Badak LNG plant article
The Badak gas field article qualifies for retention as I noted above but a better editorial decision is to merge and redirect to the larger, more notable Badak LNG plant article. That's the liquified natural gas plant built for the Badak gas.--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Badak gas field#General comments on gas field notability and deletions for more discussion of gas field notability. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per A.B. - Wow - I haven't seen an extended AFD discussion in the Indonesian scope like this for a very long time - the article was created by an editor who left a trail of very problematic articles throughout the world relative to mining and energy subjects, usually about a paragraph long, with assertions that in many cases did not stand the test of time - in the current discussion, I can see that the article has to be merged with the plant article - it makes sense. JarrahTree 12:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a properly sourced summary to Badak LNG plant article per above.  // Timothy :: talk  18:23, 18 February 2024 (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 Withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Aintabli (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Émile (novel)[edit]

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

Simply doesn't pass WP:NBOOK. Could not find a single source in which this book is the primary topic. Aintabli (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn by nominator as sources have been found after LEvalyn's through extensive digging. I believe this could better be covered as part of the author's own article, but that would be within the scope of a merger discussion. Aintabli (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and France. Aintabli (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I haven't found a clear NBOOK pass but I'm seeing reasons to keep looking. The sources are in French and it's hard to avoid Rousseau, but I think biographies of the author (about whom much is written!) will lead to sourcing. Here's what I've found so far:
  • In Les idées politiques d'Émile de Girardin (here), this sentence: "il publie en 1827 un roman autobiographique, Emile, où il expose ses malheurs d'enfants naturel : le livre émeut les cœurs sensibles, et Janin lui consacre un article fort élogieux dans le Figaro." -- this promises an article by Janin in le Figaro, though I don't know how to actually find it.
  • I also see maybe two pages of discussion of the novel in this article, Sondages dans le roman français du point de vue social (1789-1830), p. 43-44, and I think it gets mentioned elsewhere in the article too. I would be tempted to count this toward NBOOK.
  • The book gets a one-sentence mention with a quote in this article, Le gouvernement des portraits: Autour d'Émile de Girardin. This one isn't SIGCOV but indicates an awareness of the book among his autobiographers.
As things stand, I can't make a good keep argument, but I'd be curious what someone with better French could turn up. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first source appears to be telling that Janin devoted his work to Girardin, not necessarily his autobiographical work. If the second one is a mere mention and nothing in-depth, it cannot be counted. Aintabli (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the first, the antecedent of "lui" is "le livre"; it can't mean a general dedication to Girardin. Drawing on this thread, I was able to find the review by Janin in le Figaro, here -- this new source is clearly a substantive review, suitable for NBOOK.
For the second, the article discusses Emile at length as an example of a book which presents a bastard as its sympathetic protagonist, much more than a passing mention. It gives a short plot summary and discusses the characterization of the protagonist. It's not fully clear to me at a glance at what point the author changes their focus back to the more general idea of books about victims, but there is more detail about the book than will show up in the average Kirkus review. I think it's a borderline but plasible NBOOK option.
Now that I've determined that the book was published with the subtitle "Fragmens", it will be easier to search without getting a bunch of false positives. I will take another look for more coverage. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At the least, we should redirect to Émile de Girardin, the author. That said, he appears to have been notable in part for this book, so I strongly suspect there are sources out there on the book. Do ping me if any more are found. I'll try to have a look later but wanted to at least suggest this obvious WP:ATD. -- asilvering (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Still talked about 100 yrs later [3]. It's also discussed here [4]. I think with the period reviews cited in the article, it's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    psst, that's 200 years later -- asilvering (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    Zut alors! Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The 21st-century coverage Oaktree found has convinced me without need for further sources, but I do still think many more exist that haven't been turned up so far. The Le Figaro review is absolutely WP:NBOOK-relevant coverage, and the second edition published 15 years later is strong evidence for lasting or recurring impact. It might make more sense to cover this on the author's article than in an independent article, but it doesn't need to be redirected/deleted for lack of notability. -- asilvering (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I haven't turned up a second proper review yet but I am increasingly sure that there's enough out there. (I did turn up a 19thC paper saying that they'd have a review in their next issue, but the next issue was not scanned!) If we want to look through the lens of NBOOK, I think either the article Sondages dans le roman français or Oaktree's find in Le Livre could be considered NBOOK-worthy "non-trivial published works" since both are more than a page of scholarly analysis. I also think there's a good GNG case: of the 8 sources in the article, 6 are independent & secondary, and I haven't added Oaktree's great Le Livre find yet. So overall, it took a fair bit of digging, but I now think keep is the right call. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2024 (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. Pretty much a WP:SNOW case, which is often the case for new events that are rapidly developing. Closing early as I don't see a likelihood that opinions will change and an AFD hanging over an article that is rapidly developing isn't beneficial to the reader or editors. Dennis Brown 2¢ 03:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lakewood Church shooting[edit]

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

Two victims; not notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. The location the shooting occurred at has already lead to significant secondary source coverage of the event, and it's not clear how many victims there are as the event only occurred an hour ago. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lakewood Church. This is too recent to show long-term notability, and can be adequately covered as a section of Lakewood Church. Keeping coverage in one place helps to avoid confusion and duplication of effort. I don't really have any reason that's not already covered, but looking at this again, I do think the article should be kept. Please consider this !vote to be retracted. Luke10.27 (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2024 (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/2024 February 11. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. The Guardian, NYT, ABC, and CNN are the ones that come close. So, otherwise, we can either Keep, or merge. If we get all reliable/secondary sources publishing about the event, we can keep it, or if we can't, we can merge and put info into a section per my reasoning. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article just got created, so let’s give it a little more time then later make up the decision to merge later. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. The article was both created too soon and brought to AfD too soon. There is clearly coverage but we are in a poor position to judge notability, which is partly accorded with time, when this occurred hours ago. Bring it to AfD in a week's time if you still think it should be deleted. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that the nominating editor previously nominated a shooting for deletion within 24 hours of the event; that article was kept after the article was expanded significantly in the days following the attack. Of course WP:CRYSTALBALL applies and every article should be evaluated for its individual merits, but if the consensus here turns out to be Keep, I hope the nominator will remember both these discussions before bringing such news items to AfD so soon in the future. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Christianity, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Lakewood Church for two reasons. First, articles shouldn't be created using exclusively primary sources, which are all that exist at this time. Don't create articles about events until after historical significance is demonstrated. Second, should secondary sources turn up, it's still better suited to be covered at the target article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. There's no reason for a random news story that happened at this church to be split off to its own article instead of being covered in the article about the church itself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    exclusively primary sources Thank you for clarifying that you don't know what a primary source is. You did this same thing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Farmington, New Mexico shooting and were called out for it there. It's disappointing to see you still using this logic almost a year later. I invite you to re-read WP:PRIMARY again and hopefully this time will stick with you. Second ... WP:PAGEDECIDE Trumped by WP:DUE, the shooting coverage was already taking up a proportionally significant amount of the text at the main Lakewood Church article, and as more details are released it would just get worse. WP:PAGEDECIDE is great for edge-cases where due weight is manageable, but not with this subject. random The event was not random, unless you have insider knowledge that the shooter flipped a coin or rolled dice before their shooting spree. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Locke Cole:
    • WP:PRIMARY – For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources.
    • WP:RSBREAKING – All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution
    "Called out for it" is a strange way to say that you and only you disagreed with me when I applied these P&G. Regarding "random crime", that's a common term to distinguish from domestic crime. Regarding WP:DUE, the answer to outsized importance within the article isn't to give it even more outsized importance in a separate article as if it were an event of historical interest. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all of the sources were of the "breaking news" variety, so again, not primary sources... You applied those WP:PAG in a discussion where the final decision was to keep, you can take from that what you will, but my interpretation was that they were not convincing then, and they shouldn't be now. As to WP:DUE, your argument is wrong and is precisely why Flat Earth exists separate from Earth (where the flat Earth concept only merits a sentence). This is also the example given at WP:DUE. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I say Keep for now. References are good. Coverage indicates notability at this point. BabbaQ (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect. The article dedicated to this event was created too soon. If there's a lot of information that comes out about this incident in the next few days, I would Keep. But since it was created too soon and it seems like only 2 people were injured and the only death is the perpetrator, I recommend the article to merge to Lakewood Church. Dc55555 (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at least for now. Maybe in a couple weeks if nothing really comes of it we could nominate it again but for now it seems it could be rather notable as it was a female shooter which is super rare in these cases. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we're getting into WP:SNOW territory. Despite quite high participation for a new AfD, no real argument for deletion has been advanced except the nominating editor's. A merge/redirect can be discussed on the relevant talk page in the coming days as the event's notability and the likely maximum possible length of the article become clearer with the passage of time. If deletion is still seen as preferable to a merge/redirect, the article can always come back to AfD in a week or two's time. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The number of victims don't determine notability of a shooting and it is being widely reported. -UtoD 17:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: any attack on a large and globally recognized religious institution is worthy of a page, however, it might have prematurely created, but future edits will remedy that concern. 2601:646:9E02:6D60:A80E:6199:5902:DE42 (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, probably merge later. As others have said, this article was created too soon. But this article was also brought to AfD too soon. Don't rush to delete articles about breaking news events. It's too early to properly assess notability here, and I struggle to see a good reason to delete as opposed to merging.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As other editors have said, this just happened, and this was brought up for deletion way too soon. Give it a few days, for more secondary sources to present themselves, as some are already making headlines, but who knows, more may come out. If we can't find more coverage of the event in the next few days, I would move to merge/redirect, but for now, I vote to keep. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 20:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The shooting was high-profile, despite low casualties, and has received a lot of press. Tons of high-profile shootings have Wikipedia articles, and I as such don't see reason why this one should not. AmericanBaath (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The signifcant news coverage of the shooting makes it notable, not the number of casualties. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As noted above, the attack has garnered significant coverage regardless of the low causality count. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2024 (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 Western Illinois Purple and Gold football, 1902–1909#1903. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1903 Western Illinois Purple and Gold football team[edit]

1903 Western Illinois Purple and Gold football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks the necessary sourcing to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS as it stands. If the creator or someone else wishes to draftify this, be my guest. Let'srun (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Illinois. Let'srun (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's suitable for a decade list of seasons, but not as a stand-alone. SportingFlyer T·C 22:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Sigh... will eventually get to creating a merger target. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Western Illinois Purple and Gold football, 1902–1909#1903. Western Illinois is a Division I program, and its history warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. 1903 was the first season, and the coverage is sparse. Accordingly, and per WP:NSEASONS, it makes sense to group the first decade of seasons into a single article. I began the target article tonight, and I'll continue working on it and invite anyone else interested to assist in the effort. Cbl62 (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Open to a redirect. Great work Cbl62. Let'srun (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiverse (Stephen King)[edit]

Multiverse (Stephen King) (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)

100% pure fancruft and original research that blatantly fails WP:NOT. This would need a total rewrite to even stand a chance of being notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The very definition of fancruft. Even with proper sourcing (i.e. sources other than the books themselves), I can't see this ever not running afoul of WP:NOT. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:OR. Some of this is sourced directly to a Stephen King website. Even if it was declared as accurate by Stephen King himself, there would still be the problem of WP:SIGCOV. Without reliable sources, I don't see anything to WP:PRESERVE here. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I wouldn't be surprised if there were some genuine sources that talk about some of King's multiverse concepts, especially in relation to The Dark Tower series. But, this article is not even really on that topic - its just an in-universe description of some of the fictional concepts that appear in his books, and then a list of "Worlds" that is largely based on WP:OR - the fact that there are some inaccuracies/contradictions in that list kind of demonstrates that it is based off of different users OR. Rorshacma (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appears to be WP:OR. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see the consensus as Keep and the sources provided are adequate. Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1912 Morris Harvey football team[edit]

1912 Morris Harvey football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks the in-depth sourcing to meet the GNG or WP:NSEASONS, and a WP:BEFORE check didn't come up with anything better. Playing Notre Dame doesn't grant a team its own season article. Let'srun (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Playing Notre Dame doesn't make it non-notable, either. This article, admittedly a stub, seems to be part of a series of articles about independent colleges' football seasons in 1912. Some articles in the series are obviously better-documented than others, but that doesn't mean that the smaller or lesser-known schools' seasons are non-notable. There are three independent, reliable sources, and presumably others could be found in newspapers that aren't available online. And given the subject—college football seasons—I'm reasonably sure that readers do want this information to be part of the encyclopedia. I see fifty page views over the last ninety days preceding this nomination (sixty-two now), and while that's not a lot, it's more than many "kept" articles about obscure, but technically notable topics get. This nomination seems more like a "podunk colleges aren't notable" argument to me. P Aculeius (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though not the strongest pass, there seems to be some decent coverage of this season on Newspapers.com, including articles (albeit brief) from unrelated states covering some of their games, which seems to show prominence. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on sources found Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veritas Christian Academy[edit]

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

This article about a school has one reference, to the school's NCES data. I have carried out WP:BEFORE, and only found one additional reference, local news coverage about a day of service. I don't think the school meets WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Tacyarg (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2024 (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. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of Curitiba[edit]

Etymology of Curitiba (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)

Duplicate of Curitiba#Etymology. Furthermore, the article as it stands largely appears to consist of the main author's own WP:SYNTH. For example, they reference the presence of Guarani words in a 1639 Guarani-Spanish dictionary, and then use that information to speculate about the etymology of the city's name, without ever citing a reliable secondary source that arrives at the same sort of conclusions. This is just one example; there are many others. All in all, there is very little of value in the article that meets Wikipedia's standards, and since the subject of the article already has its own section at Curitiba#Etymology, there is no reason for a stand alone page on the matter, especially one of such poor quality. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong, speedy keep. First and foremost, let’s break it down… The nominator’s arguments do not hold up in any way and merely reveal that they did not even check the sources, the minimum expected of a Wikipedia editor. I did not engage in WP:SYNTH anywhere in the article; I simply referenced primary sources that had already been published by reliable sources, which is permitted, as stated here: “Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia”. You may wonder which reliable source published this. Simply reading the article and checking the sources would answer that question. It was written by Aryon Dall’Igna Rodrigues, arguably the most prolific linguist of Brazilian indigenous languages in the last century! So, let’s proceed…
    Red XN Duplicate of Curitiba#Etymology – False.
    Red XN Furthermore, the article as it stands largely appears to consist of the main author’s own WP:SYNTH – Exactly! “Appears” is the word! Because it only appears to be the case, but it is not, revealing your carelessness in consulting the sources and an unwarranted eagerness to delete an article on a subject in which you have no interest and have never shown interest, as evidenced by your editing pattern.
    Red XN and then use that information to speculate about the etymology of the city’s name – I didn’t. Aryon Dall’Igna Rodrigues did. And he was even recognized by the Enciclopédia dos Municípios Brasileiros for this; it’s in the article, read that source!
    Red XN without ever citing a reliable secondary source that arrives at the same sort of conclusions – Simply false. Again…
    Red XN This is just one example; there are many others – It’s simply false, as previously stated. So try to cite a real example.
Finally, I would like to make it clear that the nominator does not speak Portuguese, as evidenced on their user page, and all the sources are in Portuguese. Although this is not a barrier to nominating articles for deletion, it is interesting to note all the carelessness behind the opening of this RfD. I had never seen this user before… Inviting Bageense, who is interested in Tupi–Guarani languages and does speak Portuguese, and DAR7, who was the creator of the original article the Portuguese-language Wikipedia and for whom I created this article and even licensed it under CC0 (and who also speaks Portuguese). RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'd like to note that the main reason why this article should not exist is because it is a duplicate of Curitiba#Etymology. The quality of the article, as mentioned in my original post, was merely a secondary reason. With regards to this main point, you simply deny that the article is a duplicate of Curitiba#Etymology without any reasoning, just a one-word declaration that it is "False." But it should surprise no one that you expend no effort refuting my point: my claim was not refutable, it is patently and obviously true. Even a child could tell you the topic of Curitiba#Etymology and Etymology of Curitiba is one and the same. What's more, you even confirmed that you believe this by editing Curitiba#Etymology to refer readers to Etymology of Curitiba via a {{main}} template!
To be clear, I am not claiming the contents of the article are identical to the contents of Curitiba#Etymology. This is obviously false; anyone could tell you they do not consist of identical words in an identical order. I am claiming that the subjects of the article Etymology of Curitiba and the Curitiba#Etymology are the same: they are both (intended to be) about the etymology of the name of the city of Curitiba.
Thus, if you wish to make contributions to Wikipedia regarding the topic of the etymology of this city's name, there is already a perfectly good place to do so: Curitiba#Etymology. Any content the community feels is salvageable can go there.
Second, while I do not feel this is actually particularly germane to the discussion at hand, I have studied Portuguese in the past and while my abilities are definitely rusty as I do not get much practice with it any more, I can still read Portuguese with well over 95% passive comprehension (~100% with occasional dictionary use), and since I use Spanish daily and study French regularly, it has not been hard to maintain such passive skills, even though I do not feel comfortable speaking or writing in Portuguese. I don't list every language I have experience with on my page, only ones that I am currently, actively studying or consider myself extremely proficient to fluent in. I spent an appropriate amount of time looking at your sources before coming to my conclusions, and I stand by them. Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The etymology of the city's name is object of controversy, and can't be easily summarized in a brief section in the article about the city. If we were to move all this content to Curitiba#Etymology, that'd result in undue weight, since the article is quite long (and could be even longer). So, no, the article is not a duplication of what is in Curitiba#Etymology: just compare the size of both texts. --Bageense(disc.) 13:38, 12 February 2024 (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! 21:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talisman City[edit]

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

My before yeilded nothing of substance. Article has been tagged for notabilty for 3 years. Article was created in 2003 so nobody is working to fix it up Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, reviews from Games International and Shadis are noted, for starters. There may be more. BOZ (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I started this article, so it would make me sad to see it deleted. But whatever's better for Wikipedia is best. There is a new expansion for the latest version of Talisman that could be added to the article, but of course, that's all moot if the article's deleted. The article is just about the version for the Second Edition of the game, but Talisman is now on the Fourth Edition. The editions has significant differences, as do the expansions, such as City. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 01:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think the above reviews plus http://www.boardgame.de/reviews/talcity.htm (which is niche but looks reliable) probably gets us over the WP:N bar. Editorially it might make sense to merge it back to the main game--I'm not sure we need a separate article for this expansion. I'm 95% sure I played the original back in the day... But keep and discuss merge on the talk page is where I'm at. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I have added relevant comments from the Shadis review and from a review in an Italian magazine, which when combined with the review from Games International, I believe firmly establishes notability. Guinness323 (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on improvements made by Guinness323. BOZ (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in the end, somebody was working to fix it up. Geschichte (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2024 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suat Onur Ayas[edit]

Suat Onur Ayas (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)

Was brought up to my attention after the creator was blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia as a UPE and sockpuppet. If we ignore that the prose is entirely uncited for two seconds, we can see that 19 of the references are from IMDb, while two are similar databases. The only source left now is Ref 3, which is just a photo and doesn't confirm anything. Appears to have won an award in 2017, though checking the article of the award it's evident that this wouldn't result in auto-notability.

This is a rather poor attempt to refbomb a topic into notability. A search for "Suat Onur Ayas" or "Suat Onur Ayaş" results in no other sources. Lacks significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. Styyx (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability. Tehonk (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KUCL-LD[edit]

KUCL-LD (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 have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this article should have never been created to begin with. Catfurball (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2024 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cenk Telkiviran Orchestra[edit]

Cenk Telkiviran Orchestra (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)

Was brought up to my attention after the creator was blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia as a UPE and sockpuppet. The topic here lacks significant coverage from reliable and independent sources.

The sources in the article read promotional and are obviously paid-for. They heavily rely on quotes by band members or the founder, so they wouldn't be independent regardless. This source in similar style is tagged as sponsored, but not all Turkish publications make these disclosures.

Apart from the promos, there are no additional sources for this to be notable. Styyx (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability. Tehonk (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Human Society and Its Environment[edit]

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

This article seems to be a course syllabus, which fails WP:N and probably WP:C. - Guillaume Faye-Bédrin (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding:

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.

You can't just mention an article in a discussion to have it be part of a bundled nomination. It should be included in the nomination, tagged and the article creator informed of the discussion. So this closure affects only the article that was tagged as part of this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Quidditch Cup[edit]

Spanish Quidditch Cup (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 sure this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. There doesn't seem to be much coverage. I checked Spanish Wikipedia and the article there was deleted for "no encyclopedic relevance." StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2024 (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 03:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portable roller coaster[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Unsourced for a very long time. I couldn't find any good sources that could used in a Wikipedia entry, i. e. anything that includes its in-depth description or history instead of a simple definition or passing mention. Even if there was a good source, this would be better off as a part of roller coaster. Aintabli (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on those? Toughpigs (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see much WP:SIGCOV. There is barely any encyclopedic information that could be extracted from them. I've noted two pieces of information that could be cited, the alleged largest portable roller coaster in the United States and their quantity (5), but the sources are quite dated. No justification for a standalone article. Aintabli (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete: Existence is not notability, BEFORE found examples of portable roller coasters, but nothing with WP:SIGCOV about the subject itself meriting its own article. No objection to a consensus redirect, but I don't see it as useful.  // Timothy :: talk  18:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing significant coverage. Category:Portable roller coasters covers the rest. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreeing with Aintabli. sources say "oh its a portable rollar coaster"
Password (talk)(contribs) 02:27, 19 February 2024 (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 clock towers#Philippines. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clock towers in the Philippines[edit]

Clock towers in the Philippines (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 that appears to be largely based on WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The topic of clock towers as they appear in the Philippines does not appear to actually be a topic that has had any coverage in reliable sources. I can not find any reliable sources that discuss this phenomenon, and the article itself has none, merely having sources verifying that the individual entries on this list exist. The only one of the listed towers that appears to have any kind of notability at all is the one in Manila, which is covered at Manila City Hall#Clock Tower. Rorshacma (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2024 (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 GRTC Pulse#List of stations. I note that more than one editor stated that a broader discussion should take place. That may or may not be the case, and users may proceed with blank-and-redirect in accordance with ordinary rules, but this discussion does not in itself attain consensus to redirect all stations of this bus line there. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Street station[edit]

Allison Street station (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)

It doesn't seem to meet WP:N or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2024 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bontaqin[edit]

Bontaqin (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)

Notability tag wad added with reason: 'Unlikely this is a village - GNS and GeoNames say this is a locality, not even a populated locality, there is nothing that looks like a village at this location, and the census includes places that are not villages.' I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2024 (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. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Saints Anglican Church (Raleigh, North Carolina)[edit]

All Saints Anglican Church (Raleigh, North Carolina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Possible WP:ATDs are merge/redirect to Raleigh, North Carolina or Anglican Church in North America, but I am not sure if either would be in balance with the target articles. Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2024 (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 Richard Bartle. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spellbinder (paper-and-pencil game)[edit]

Spellbinder (paper-and-pencil game) (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)

Sources are all primary. No evidence of notability. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:03, 11 February 2024 (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, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Rahim Mosque[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have a good WP:ATD. Possible merge/redirect to Dubai Marina, but could unbalance that article. Boleyn (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akshayapureeswarar Temple[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Tone 17:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aigner-Schanze[edit]

Aigner-Schanze (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)

It exists, but doesn't have significant coverage. Doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it is a World Cup venue and as such notable. The article, of course, need improvements.
  • Withdraw nomination Tone is absolutely right, I was concentrating too much on how much I was struggling for decent references rather than the level of events. Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2024 (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. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Paris[edit]

Amanda Paris (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 isn't enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability according to WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, and/or WP:MUSICBIO. Therefore, the article fails to meet the criteria. GSS 💬 15:56, 11 February 2024 (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 23:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Munir Hasan[edit]

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

Not notable, vanity article Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2024 (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Psychogenetic system[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N, or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is advertising for the Gestalt Institute and Teachworth's book (article creator's name is very similar to the writer). It treats a term made up in that book as its own thing, so WP:NEO may apply. Most of Wikipedia's articles about the TA/Gestalt/schema therapy sphere are pretty low quality, and deleting pages like this will help concentrate improvements to more central articles. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2024 (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 23:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rational Academy[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG, or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2024 (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)‎ Geschichte (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Academy (hotel)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Academy (hotel) (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)

Last AfD was no consensus. I couldn't find sources to confirm it meets WP:N or a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Starmer-Smith, Charles (2006-03-04). "Hotel Watch". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-02-11. Retrieved 2024-02-11.

      The review notes: "Originally built as five Georgian homes in 1776, the Academy is a few minutes from the West End, Covent Garden and Soho. The draw: Retaining many original features, it is tastefully decorated with cosy lounges, open fires and two private gardens. Situated on a quiet residential street away from the rush-hour traffic it is, as claimed, an oasis in the heart of London. The drawback: The bedroom windows did not open, which is unfortunate if you like fresh air. If you are looking for a hip hotel with buzzing nightlife, look elsewhere."

    2. Walton, Kenneth; Trodden, Clare; Glover, Gillian; Smith, Aidan (2001-12-01). "Kings and queens for the day". The Scotsman. Archived from the original on 2024-02-11. Retrieved 2024-02-11.

      The review notes: "The Academy, an elegant row of five connected Georgian houses on Gower Street, certainly doesn't feel like a hotel. The friendly, informal reception hall and winding corridors have a homely appeal. The 49 individually-designed rooms avoid the twee, opting for sensible comfort and quality. "

    3. "The Academy, London". The Guardian. 2001-02-17. Archived from the original on 2024-02-11. Retrieved 2024-02-11.

      The review notes: "First impressions: Somewhat unprepossessing terrace on a busy road opposite the university and British library buildings. Walk inside, however, and you are transported in to an elegant townhouse, created by linking five Georgian houses together. What are the rooms like? As you might expect from a West End hotel, these are not massive. But the suites are spacious and tastefully decorated. Substantial double bed, sofa, and TV of course, but nice extra touches include a bowl of apples, CD player and stereo."

    4. Horsford, Simon (2018-12-01). "The Academy: Bloomsbury, London, England". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-02-11. Retrieved 2024-02-11.

      The review notes: "The Academy consists of five Georgian Grade II-listed townhouses, subtly spliced together and dating from the late 1700s. Since being bought by YTL Hotels (executive director Dato Mark Yeoh used to go to school near here and remembered the building), the formerly fusty old Academy hotel, which dates from the 1960s, has been transformed with a five-star look. New York-based designer Alexandra Champalimaud oversaw the redesign, creating an engaging blend of the modern and the original – such as the staircase and the fireplaces – with a nod to the lives of the Bloomsbury Set (there are books aplenty around the hotel, including novels by Virginia Woolf and E.M. Forster)."

    5. McKenna, Steve (2018-11-04). "Tomes sweet tomes in the bookish hub - Hotel". The Age. Archived from the original on 2024-02-11. Retrieved 2024-02-11.

      The review notes: "Which is why 21 Gower Street - located on one of Bloomsbury's most bustling thoroughfares, around the corner from the British Museum, a book's throw from Bedford Square - is such an appealing address. Here, spread across five, three-storey townhouses, is the Academy Hotel, a boutique establishment that is as much a place in which to hang out as it is somewhere to stay, especially now it's flaunting a flamboyant multimillion-dollar refurbishment masterminded by New York designer Alexandra Champalimaud."

    6. O'Flaherty, Mark C. (2019-01-28). "Hotel Hit Squad: Its cosy bar, library and warren of small spaces make The Academy feel like a club – just without the bonhomie". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-02-11. Retrieved 2024-02-11.

      The review notes: "I thought of Number 31 when I was staying at The Academy hotel in Bloomsbury. It too has been converted from an old Georgian town house - or, to be precise, five of them. It's on that long stretch of Gower Street, close to the British Museum, that I think of as the bit the 73 bus goes down before I get to "town proper". The Academy has just been entirely renovated - by New York-based studio Champalimaud - to set it apart from the other kitschy luxe tourist B&Bs on the strip. The reboot is smart, bringing a lot of rich and heavy wallpapers by Liberty and Cole and Sons, and textiles from Kravet, Lee Jofa and Osborne & Little to relatively small spaces, adding presence and resonance."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Academy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Those are primary sources, to meet GNG you need Secondary sources. James.folsom (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Every one of those sources is a review. Reviews in newspapers are the opinion of the author. These are not reliable sources. James.folsom (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Listed buildings are an indication of notability and the sources shown in the comment above help establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT as a listed building. But passes WP:GNG in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2024 (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. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Fellers[edit]

Sierra Fellers (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)

Successful in his field, but doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG, or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to List of monsters in Marvel Comics. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orrgo[edit]

Orrgo (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)

All of the sources in this article are either primary or rubbish. The closest things to reliable sources that I could find were two listicles. A redirect to the relevant list would be possible. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Password (talk)(contribs) 02:32, 19 February 2024 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Spieler[edit]

Jeffrey Spieler (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 public servant. Mooonswimmer 14:34, 11 February 2024 (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 Antop Hill. History is thereunder for a merge, if desired. Star Mississippi 03:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C.G.S. colony[edit]

C.G.S. colony (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)

Two sources were added after de-prodding, but editors are still uncertain if this meets WP:GNG Ben Azura (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Antop Hill, agreeing with Rupples. sourcing online is not good enough to be its own article.
Password (talk)(contribs) 02:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mazhar Ali Khan (journalist)[edit]

Mazhar Ali Khan (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 WP:GNG. Just one source refers to the subject in detail. The other two are about his wife and only mention him in passing. Codenamewolf (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator as another book reference has now added to article. Codenamewolf (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Pakistan. GSS 💬 15:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mazhar Ali Khan (1917 - 1993) was and still is known to be a pioneering journalist in Pakistan. He had a long distinguished career in journalism. There should be no doubt and none exists about his notability in Pakistan among the people who know history of journalism in Pakistan. He was a long-time editor of a major English-language newspaper, Pakistan Times in the 1950s. Dawn newspaper reference, as the above nominator himself says has in-depth significant coverage about his career and life. So in my view, this article meets WP:SIGCOV on that basis alone... The second reference is from the UK newspaper The Independent that talks about both his wife and him. It's very relevant because she was a liberated lady for those old days and highly active in his day-to-day affairs including his jounalistic career. I will soon replace the third newspaper reference from the The Friday Times. That newspaper apparently has developed some business problems very recently and possibly will change only to be an on-line newspaper. As we all know, these things sometimes happen in the business world. That's why I will be replacing that reference soon. Please allow me some time...Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Article meets WP:SIGCOV based on one good quality source, but multiple such sources (atleast 3) are expected to meet WP:GNG standards per WP:SIRS, and based on a quick Google search, I'm not able to find them. Codenamewolf (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2024 (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. Complex/Rational 14:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of "www"[edit]

Pronunciation of "www" (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 web is notable, but the pronunciation of WWW is not. The whole page seems to be predicated on a quote from Douglas Adams, which might bare a sentence on other pages, but is not a subject covered in multiple reliable secondary sources in its own right. The page is poorly sourced, and has WP:OR on it. This is not an encyclopaedic treatment. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. Looks like the Douglas Adams quote (and some other stuff) is already there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it can easily be merged ''Flux55'' (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if it were merged somewhere, the page would be kept to maintain attribution. That is, of course, not a reason to keep the article absent such a merge. Cnilep (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Might be something about the quote, but then proceeds to list every language outside of EN, so doesn't seem notable. More of a list of pronunciations than any sort of encyclopedic article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This is a funny and cool article but it's Wiktionary-type stuff, it would probably be near-impossible to find a reason to deem this notable. Any scraps can be left at World_Wide_Web#Nomenclature.
TLA (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of countries by forest area. There was already an AfD closed as "merge" -- if the article's content has been merged, it should be redirected. If the resulting redirect is unnecessary, that can be taken to RfD, but taking the article itself to AfD is not the proper action or venue. jp×g🗯️ 22:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by forest area (percentage)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of countries by forest area (percentage) (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)

Delete as no longer needed as more up to date info is in List_of_countries_by_forest_area#Share_of_national_land_which_is_forest Chidgk1 (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2024 (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barış Kıralioğlu[edit]

Barış Kıralioğlu (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 do not think that the person has an encyclopedic value and during research, only sites with advertising references come up. Redivy (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The cited references in the article demonstrate the subject's notability according to WP:NACTOR, highlighting their significant roles in multiple notable TV Shows and stage performances. Please note that sources such as Cumhuriyet, Hurriyet and Tiyatronline (for theater productions) are in general considered to be among the most reliable sources for Turkey-related subjects. In addition to this, there are many more references related to their roles in other productions that they contributed, which are not yet cited. @Redivy, could you provide an assessment of the references with regard to this criteria and explain why you believe the references do not support the subject's notability? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – This recently went through an AfD on the Turkish Wikipedia, where it was deleted as participants agreed that the person did not meet the subject-specific guideline. I find this important to note as WP:NBIO and its trwiki counterpart have the exact same wording when it comes to actors and their roles. Sources cited in the article are mostly namedrops and have no significant coverage on the subject, barring a few non-independent interviews. Fails both the relevant SNG and the GNG. Styyx (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Styyx: Could you explain why you believe the criteria in WP:NACTOR is not satisfied? "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". I'd like to note that the same exact question remains unanswered in the Turkish Wikipedia discussion, and many of the editors there, including the nominator, did not elaborate on any of the references brought up in the discussion, and there was nothing similar to a WP:BEFORE. For comparison, I'd like also to mention a comparable AfD discussion that resulted in a speedy keep on Turkish Wikipedia, due to the actor criteria that I cited, so I am really puzzled to understand why the same criteria was not used for Baris Kiralioglu. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because his roles are not significant enough; he is named last or at least very close to last in most of the sources listing the actors in a production. You can't have an indefinite amount of significant roles in a series so much so that every single actor playing passes NBIO. Also note that just passing NBIO is only an indication that sources might exist and that the subject still may be not notable if those are not found. Throwing every single source in the article where the person is barely mentioned instead of focusing on a few select sources where the person is covered significantly is not helping your case here either. Styyx (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, @Styyx, for taking the time to respond. As far as I know, there is no Wikipedia guideline suggesting that the order of actors in listings can be used to determine their significance. Wouldn't it be better to leverage reliable sources for determining significance? I think this article in Hurriyet definitely demonstrates that his role in İçerde was significant enough. His portrayal of the former Turkish prime minister in Pocket Hercules: Naim Suleymanoglu was mentioned in multiple news outlets such as NTV and he appeared in the official trailer, so I believe his role there is significant as well. Also, what about all those theater plays he acted in and directed? Regarding finding sources with significant coverage: some of the cited sources are high-quality interviews with detailed introductions. Other than that, we have significant, in-depth coverage for the works that he has significantly contributed to, which establishes his notability. After notability is established, primary sources can be cited for noncontroversial biographical information for the article content. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, one thing to add is that the reference list is still likely to be incomplete due to various reasons:
    a) Istanbul has a very rich journalism culture; however, not all newspaper or periodical archives are available online.
    b) Kiralioglu seems to have professional collaborations with Italian artists, and we might have missed sources in Italian.
    c) A number of local or national Turkish news sources gets to shut down every year or so, and as a result, their archives are no longer available online. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The order used by reliable sources is just common sense. If you are the tenth actor to be listed somewhere, then your role is not significant. I still maintain the opinion that the subject is not covered in-depth by reliable and independent sources; furthermore notability can not be based on the assumption that sources exist. I find it very unlikely that they do anyway, given that none of the sources that do exist are of high-quality, so it's an ambitious stretch to suggest that all the in-depth coverage about this person ceased to exist or exists very deep. The theater plays where he did have significant roles are not notable on their own. Styyx (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again @Styyx for contributing to this discussion. My final remark on ordering would be about the deletion discussion for Güzin Çorağan in Turkish Wikipedia, during which you were an administrator, I believe. I just checked the official opening credits of the show Bizimkiler, and she appeared 25th in the listing. And you had no objection for her role being considered significant there. Barış Kıralioğlu appears within the first 5 or 10 actors in these kinds of credit lists. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment on that AfD was an informational note about the involvement of sock puppets to the administrator wishing to close the discussion. There is no remark on notability, nor do I remember evaluating the article in the first place (and for the record, I have never been an admin on the Turkish Wikipedia). Styyx (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Styyx. Aintabli (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Aintabli. I'd like to briefly recap what I would consider to be potential problems in Styyx's arguments.
    a) Although WP:NACTOR is very likely to be satisfied here, they don't accept it due to an unjustified argument that his name doesn't appear within the first 3-4 names on actor lists. However, major Turkish news outlets like NTV have published news stories where Kiralioglu's role in a production is even mentioned in the article headline. One could easily regard this as equivalent to being listed at rank 1.
    b) Styyx does not recognize that once a specific notability guideline is satisfied, it is considered highly plausible that reliable sources exists for the subject except for rare cases, even if we have not reached them yet. With it, the burden of proof for showing the absence of sources shifts to the other side.
    c) SNGs could function independently from the GNG (as with academics or geographical places). It's not explicitly stated whether WP:NACTOR should only serve as an indication that sources might exist or if it is regarded as an alternative presumption of notability. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Playing a significant person does not always equate to having a significant role. The plot only covering that character briefly doesn't suddenly make it a significant role, even if it's the president, in this case. So no, one could not easily regard this as having the main role in a title.
    I have already stated above why I find it unlikely that sources exist. If you do, however, want proof of the absence of sources after the burden somehow fell on me, here are some additional sources I have found: __. Do I even have to say this?
    From NPROF: "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline". In this passage it is explicitly stated that NPROF works different than other SNG's, with NBIO (which includes NACTOR) being used as an example. An SNG overriding the GNG is an exception, not the norm; NBIO is not one of those rare instances. The only other times this is the case is at NASTRO (only kind of, since it requires sources as well) and NCORP, which has even stricter requirements for sourcing than the GNG. All others use the terms "may" or "likely" when talking about notability. Styyx (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per TheJoyfulTentmaker. Kolhisli (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Styyx. Sources are brief mentions or interviews which are primary sources. His roles are not significant enough to meet NACTOR. S0091 (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for contributing to the discussion, @S0091, really appreciate your time. One thing to note is that there is no general agreement about whether interviews should be considered to be primary or secondary sources, as discussed in WP:INTERVIEWS. Also, I was wondering if you could tell more about how you determine the insufficient significance of his roles in a) films like İçerde and Cep Herkülü, and b) theater plays, such as Karanlıkta Komedi, and Müfettiş. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Styyx has already explained why Kıralioğlu does not meet the significant roles criteria so I am not going to cover that ground again other than to state I agree with their assessment. For interviews, anything he says about himself is primary, per both the policy (read both primary including note d and secondary) and the essay which states The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. Above, you tout this interview as "high-quailty" but is a Q&A with a standard introduction which is a couple sentences about him as were the others. At this point you veering into WP:BLUDGEONING the process so you might consider stepping back. S0091 (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some final remarks... Firstly, let me clearly state that I have no conflict of interest with this subject, if anyone was wondering. I came across its deletion discussion on the Turkish Wikipedia, and after that, I created the English stub. It remained a stub for more than a month until this AfD was created. My questions were honest, sorry to hear that S0091 considers them to be bludgeoning. The author of the bludgeoning essay accepts that it is often misused, by the way. If it was already clear to everyone except to me that the two Wikipedians would be in perfect agreement with regards to a) significance in this context is determined by being within the first 3 or 4 actors in a listing and b) the theater works should be considered non-notable even though they have received significant coverage in the Turkish mainstream media, then I apologize for my last question. Regarding interviews, the footnote d in primary states that, whether an interview is primary or secondary is context-dependent. In the ones provided, I believe there are sufficient remarks by the interviewer throughout the interview such that those would constitute information from a secondary source. It is not easy to get an interview in Hurriyet, as one can easily guess. Also, NBIO states that if a single source is not in-depth, then information from multiple sources can be combined, so the sources contribute to notability, even if we did not have NACTOR. --TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Styyx source eval. I agree found sources are database records, name mentions, or interviews, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. If someone finds WP:THREE sources meeting WP:SIGCOV, ping me.  // Timothy :: talk  21:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Costantino Mario Ruspoli, 4th Prince of Poggio Suasa[edit]

Costantino Mario Ruspoli, 4th Prince of Poggio Suasa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. No sources in article except a geneology page, BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  04:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, could not find any coverage in reliable sources. Shaws username (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this seems to be a non-notable member of the family. Being born into a formerly princely family is no guarantee of notability, as it is not inherited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 10:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Summer As A Salvation Soldier[edit]

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

My familiarity with Icelandic music isn't all it should be, but this guy doesn't seem to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:33, 11 February 2024 (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 10:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garmeh and Jajarm[edit]

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

Not finding sources that match the article name, "Garmeh and Jajarm". It could be a duplication of an article under a different name; or possibly a transliteration issue. The Persian Wikipedia article doesn't have much more info.

Within the English WP article, in Persian (جاجرم) translates to only 'Jajarm', and there is an existing Jajarm County article and a Jajarm city. Also there is a city named Garmeh article. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It is unclear if that reference appears to refer to two locations, or a single place. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No source that supports what this place is or was and the Farsi version is tagged with a proposal to merge it with Garmeh City. Also, looking at the history of the English version, an editor proposed merging it with Jajarm County [9] Another editor removed the tag with an edit summary simply stating it's notable but did not bother to add any sources [10]. S0091 (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2024 (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 00:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belhe Zaimoğlu[edit]

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

BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found interviews, name mentions, promo, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  13:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:30, 11 February 2024 (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 00:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fakhr ad-Din al-Burdwani[edit]

Fakhr ad-Din al-Burdwani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Historical scholarship does not document our subject except once with the rest of the sources being verbatim quotations. Fails WP:N with no significant level of coverage. Article contains a lot of Original Research. Jaunpurzada (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:30, 11 February 2024 (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 10:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aalay Pathu Malai Mathu[edit]

Aalay Pathu Malai Mathu (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)

Cannot find any third party sources, or proof that the movie released. This does not list it, nor does this. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2024 (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 10:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manzur Shafi Chowdhury[edit]

Manzur Shafi Chowdhury (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:NPOL. He's the chair of an upazila, and WP:NSUBPOL notes that for Bangladesh, there's no presumed notability for subnational politicians. There is some routine coverage of him being selected for a government award for "best upazila chairman" [11], but it's unclear how notable this award is. The rest of the coverage I can find on him, and most of what's cited here so far, is that he's a candidate for a national assembly election, but WP:NPOL notes that just being a candidate doesn't confer notability, and the coverage of his candidacy in RS so far is pretty thin. Article was nominated for speedy deletion yesterday, but speedy deletion was contested by an anon editor two hours ago. Wikishovel (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2024 (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 10:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HCA Florida Highlands Hospital[edit]

HCA Florida Highlands Hospital (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)

It's just a hospital, and when (almost?) every source is a primary source, I'm inclined to say 'delete' here. Every hospital has a history, and every hospital has services and ratings. I fail to see how this one hospital meets WP:GNG. — Paper Luigi T • C 07:08, 11 February 2024 (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You Alone Exist[edit]

You Alone Exist (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:NFILM. In a WP:BEFORE search I couldn't find independent, secondary coverage in WP:RS, just some passing mentions of it in various Meher Baba organization's websites, that "Culture Unplugged" post of the film by its director (with a link for funding), and social media. Wikishovel (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Religion. Wikishovel (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep :But established notability as per discussion with the nominator, see my talk page reply to the nominator talk to me. There is only one meher baba organization that is AMBPPCT, all other centers are independent of AMBPPCT they are not a single entity, How can you not consider it along with few google books, JSTOR citations as independent secondary sources? what is the evidence you have ? that this film doesnt exist ? the film is actually a musical poem which is cited in all articles listed by me. Fostera12 (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The film certainly exists: the question is whether it's notable enough for a separate article. The Google Books and JSTOR references you mention all talk about the original poem, but don't mention the film. Wikishovel (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is a film that is on sale through DVD / and extensively watched on youtube and across the countries. If it is just a poem then it doesnt require seperate article. As the article matures new sources will be added such as imdb and newspapers. The thing is it needs some time to buy in. For example, The LA times article published during 80's and 90's and Meher Mount articles talks about all meher baba footage films and use of slow motion, which you have deleted citing mentioning of the name. These are the same footages compiled in You Alone Exist. The footages of meher baba are all extensively notable enough and in addition, if compiled as a seperate collage film with a unique purpose of publishing meher baba's poem with interwoven music, then it doesnt hurt to have an independent article. And moreover mehermount, mehercenter, ambppct, sufism reoriented, meher film works, divine sport productions, meher baba travels are all independent organizations with set policies. They are not linked to each other in any way. It is a misconception that these are connected, just because they talk and publish about meher baba. Take the example of country India article, all major crux of sources come from India not united states right. This is subjective. And interestingly even you have not nominated the article for deletion initailly. And the editor who nominated this article for deletion has done it on assume good faith, and left the decision to other editors that the tag could be removed as this is highly subjective in the case of this short film article.Fostera12 (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NFILM. All sources are either primary or passing mentions. No in depth coverage found. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources are mostly either primary sources or discussions of the poem and not the film. hinnk (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a note to whoever closes this discussion, the article was moved and rewritten after my comment, such that most of it is now the complete text of the original poem. If there isn't consensus to delete the article, a WP:REVDEL will probably still be needed to address that. hinnk (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted both the page move and the article rewrite. Wikishovel (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struck second "keep": we all get to post our recommendation just once, and then comment on our and other editors' recommendations.
Also, you're welcome to create a new, separate article about the poem on which the film is based, but please don't move the film article You Alone Exist in the middle of an WP:AFD discussion about the film, and please don't try to rewrite this article to one about the poem. We have to let the discussion about the film take its course until it's closed. Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please close the discussion soon
Fostera12 (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2024 (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 10:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karad district[edit]

Karad district (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 only I could not find anything about it, according to the subpar content of the article, it was actually a "proposed" district that never came to be. Not notable. Aintabli (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn‎. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Band of Yaqui Indians[edit]

Texas Band of Yaqui Indians (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 NORG. Cited mostly on primary sources but no independent, reliable sources is available. CSMention269 (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Texas. CSMention269 (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A quick search turned up this source which looks reliable and has some pretty detailed discussion of the Texas Yacqui band. Also some coverage here. Someone should check the hits for Yaqui at the Texas Observer. I don't have an opinion either way yet, but more is out there than what is on the article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They get written about fairly often. Will add more sources. Yuchitown (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure what the nominator means by "Cited mostly on primary sources", as it currently does not look like that to me. One user's sourcing has been removed, the user blocked for edit warring. Right now, the article and its sourcing looks pretty good to me. Most definitely notable to Texas history. — Maile (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks notable enough to me to be on Wikipedia. A quick scan of sources shows multiple secondary sources from different websites. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Upon a careful review of this, I withdraw my AfD request. Only thing we can do is to improve the article. CSMention269 (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! — Maile (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2024 (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 Withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Aintabli (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RIXC[edit]

RIXC (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 cannot find any independent RS for this. There is barely any coverage. Likewise, the article stayed unsourced for 16 years! Aintabli (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And several more results (here's what I searched for). Aintabli did you search in Latvian as part of WP:BEFORE? Broc (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This book ISBN 978-3-86588-253-0 has seemingly a 2-pages description of the RIXC (per table of content), but I have no access to it. Broc (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving to a full Keep after finding mentions of RIXC projects even in English books, such as [12] Broc (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then again, it seems the foundational edit was a copyvio, see this book from 2003 at page 277 (probably not the original source) [13] Broc (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ — Paper Luigi T • C 22:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Harrison Bryant[edit]

Jamal Harrison Bryant (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 ran for United States Congress for two weeks and made the local news a handful of times. He also runs a church. This is not a noteworthy encyclopedic subject. — Paper Luigi T • C 05:26, 11 February 2024 (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 10:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Kuhn[edit]

Bob Kuhn (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)

Unnotable mayor holding unnotable positions in a small city. No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2024 (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 10:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Mouw[edit]

Marshall Mouw (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)

Unnotable mayor holding unnotable positions in a small city. No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ — Paper Luigi T • C 22:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


High school basketball[edit]

High school basketball (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 sure where the content can be drawn from. Do high school teams meet the general notability guidelines? Certainly some professional players rose from the ranks in high school, but is the high school bracket noteworthy for an encyclopedia? I'm not going to say it isn't. It's just that this article is one sentence long and doesn't really justify its own page. It's as brief as a dictionary entry. — Paper Luigi T • C 04:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — High school basketball had a major impact on 20th century American culture and has probably thousands or millions of high-quality citations from reliable independent third-party sources, plainly meeting WP:GNG. The articles written about Hoosiers alone are enough to complete the article. Pretty massive oversight for Wikipedia to not have this article until 2024.
Please remember that WP:Deletion is not cleanup and the current stub status of the article after one day of existance has no relevance to its notability. All deletion arguments against this article are WP:SURMOUNTABLE.
PK-WIKI (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it has left a very large imprint on culture in North America, and this article has much potential as a secondary topic for Basketball. Given the article's short length, it should be heavily expanded to include everything at Basketball#High school basketball and then some. The issue is that this article was created over a redirect that pointed to Basketball#High school basketball, which is more comprehensive on the subject than this one, and until there's interest in writing a full-length article, this would really be better as a redirect.
I am going to withdraw this nomination and place a cleanup tag on the page. — Paper Luigi T • C 22:12, 11 February 2024 (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) TLA (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilda Diaz[edit]

Wilda Diaz (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 mayor. This article cites a lot of sources, but they're all just routine coverage of her mayoral administration by local outlets in New Jersey. Several of the articles aren't even news coverage, they're just pages on government websites. 55,000 is not a big enough population to inherently justify giving the mayor a Wikipedia page, and it seems like no other mayors of this town have Wikipedia pages except the ones who went on to hold higher office. I don't see anything she's done that makes her notable enough for a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the NBC source provided by voorts, a second GNG source is a story box about her in "Women and Politics: A Quest for Political Equality in an Age of Economic Inequality" by Barbara Burrell (2017). Beginning on page 120 of the textbook, Burrell features Diaz. Between those two sources and the existing sources, this is a GNG pass. --Enos733 (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two more GNG articles (one found, one alluded to). Coverage in the NY Times after her initial election: "Newcomer’s Rise Signals a Shift in Power New York Times. Jul 6, 2008 (one representative quote "political analysts say victories like those by Ms. Diaz represent a significant generational shift in state politics"). Also, it is mentioned that she was "featured in Real Simple Magazine as, “The Accidental Politician” among only four female mayors nation-wide." I have not found the article, but if it does say what it is alleged to say, it should also be an independent, significant source. --Enos733 (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the book, the story box is an excerpt from the NBC piece, not a separate source. That said, I think the NY Times article in addition to the NBC piece meets GNG, so I will be changing my !vote. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources provided satisfy GNG, as being significant and sustained regarding her mayoralty. Size of locale not relevant and like OTHER STUFF (about others mayors) exists or does not exist is not a nomination criteria. first women mayor of city, first female Latina mayor of state adds cachet. Djflem (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The claim of notability as the state's first Latina mayor, backed by this reliable and verifiable source in the state's largest newspaper, combined with the other non-routine sources about her described above and in the article demonstrate that the notability standard has been met. Alansohn (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2024 (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. WP:SUSTAINED has been cited as met. Editors note that some clean-up can be helpful. (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lumberton High School (Texas)[edit]

Lumberton High School (Texas) (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)

Currently, fails to meet the requirements of meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG 1keyhole (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Available sourcing sufficient to meet WP:GNG, as with pretty much any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment notability is determined not by the references in the article, which at the time of nomination were as noted, not so good, but by whether such references exist. There are, loads of references available in an easy internet search. First, just using Google, I found a bunch, and added a few to the article. I apologize for putting out some bare references, but due to situations beyond my control, I don't have much time right now. Secondly, I took a look at newspapers.com via the Wikipedia library and confirmed that historically, there are many, many more references over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time. A good bit of the coverage is from national sources, try searching for "Lumberton High School" + Burqa for one such instance. IMO, a robust WP:BEFORE would have yielded the conclusion that 1.) the article was poorly sourced, but sources clearly NEXIST and so the article should be improved, not torched. Jacona (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is WP:SUSTAINED and significant coverage in many reliable sources. The article meets WP:NSCHOOL. The article is poorly sourced and needs improvement, but the subject is notable and should be edited for content and utilize some of the sources available, rather than being deleted. The sources currently in the article are more than sufficient to demonstrate that the school meets NSCHOOL, but much polishing is needed. Jacona (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Jacona although with the caveat that those sources are news sources and thus primary. Still, the school received national news attention, and sustained coverage. It is a large school, open since the 1960s and is shown to have actively particiapted in and won state championships. That looks notable to me. I fixed some of the bare url refs but none of the 12newsnow.com urls work for me. Could you check those? If they work for US readers it may be a site that only allows regional access to its content, in which case I would say it is not suitable for verification purposes. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2024 (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 04:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KKPM-CD[edit]

KKPM-CD (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 lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SapientX[edit]

SapientX (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)

Refbombed article about an AI startup, packed with references that don’t mention the subject at all, or mention it in passing, or are PR. There are a few refs that discuss the subject in detail so it might be possible to stubify and keep this, but it seems marginal so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Notability is marginal, and the article’s Promo style is annoying, but its Product Sage does seem to have gotten significant coverage as sourced here. Llajwa (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coverage" is not a criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 20:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coverage" is not a criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 20:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a co-founder of SapientX. To date, we have 31 press articles and TV interviews, published 5 white papers, issued 14 press releases and we will be featured in Dominique Wu's soon to be released book on XR. I realize that most of the above is not highly valued by Wikipedia standards.
I would also like to share with you important historical milestones that are not well supported by press:
1. SapientX's conversational AI work began in 2003 under ARDA's NIMD research program. This work was done by parent company Planet 9 Studios and the IP was transferred to SapientX in 2016. Under this funding, we developed Sage, the first commercial conversational 3D character. (IBM Watson also began in the NIMD program.) This can all be documented with valid footnotes.
2. Bruce Wilcox joined our team in 2008 and developed an upgraded AI system later to be called ChatScript and released into open source. ChatScript is the first generative AI conversational system that I am aware of. The press falsely portrays ChatGPT as the first generative AI system. ChatScript was used in our RayGun navigation platform. Customers included BMW, Clarion, Intel, Nvidia and Magellan GPS.
3. In 2016, we developed Mitsubishi Mia, the first conversational 3D character for automotive use.
4. In 2021, we publicly demonstrated the first life-size conversation 3D character in a prototype for Lowe's.
5. In 2022, we delivered Chief, a life-size museum docent, to the Liberty Station retail complex in San Diego.
The point that I would like to make is that we have consistently been leaders in conversational AI and these achievements should be captured in Wikipedia. I can provide documentation of each fact asserted above. I acknowledge that these same facts are not fully supported in the commercial press. So I ask, are press citations more valuable than actual historical achievement? I will be happy to add these facts along with citations, to the SapientX article. DavidColleen (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi David, we require (a) in-depth (b) analysis/opinion/investigation/fact checking that are (3) clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the topic company. So on the basis that the TV interviews are essentially giving somebody from the company speaking, the white papers are published by the company, press releases are published by the company, and the book isn't published as of yet so we've no idea of the content, that leaves us with the 31 press articles. An analysis of those articles to date shows that they regurgitate the information provided by the company. They fail (a), (b) and (c) of the test above. HighKing++ 15:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks HighKing. Yes, I already stated that I understood your evaluation of the present footnotes. I can introduce the above facts to the article supported by new source documents and references. I'm not versed in your rules. Shall I directly add the above facts? DavidColleen (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: While it's certainly noteworthy (in the colloquial sense) that someone is developing NLP applications using symbolic AI in the year 2024, I am not convinced it's notable in the Wikipedian sense. Most of the sourcing is passing mentions and I don't see a whole lot of significant in-depth coverage. jp×g🗯️ 07:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course symbolic AI has its place in 2024. Companies approaching unicorn status like Kore.AI and JustAnswer use the same underlying symbolic NLP (ChatScript). It's as effective as machine learning for intent detection. Earl Sacerdoti reviewed SapientX's NL technology for a fundraising site and said: "the symbolic-processing approach uses programs rather than statistics to interpret inputs. This makes the systems less robust than the statistically-based ones, but completely reliable. This is important for tasks like controlling automotive subsystems, where a language-based control system performing the incorrect task is distracting if not dangerous." And we all know the unreliabilities of LLM's. SapientX blends NLP approaches as appropriate for task. (Bruce Wilcox, SapientX). 90.214.57.60 (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my first Wikipedia post. I'm a co-founder of SapientX. While it's currently fashionable to use machine learning and more recently large language models for machine conversation, both fail to offer the accuracy and reliability needed for serious commercial applications. For instance, Open AI, in their recent white paper, claims only 78% conversational accuracy for GPT-4 asking the same question 5 times. The core of SapientX's conversation system is ChatScript (symbolic reasoning) which yields 99% accuracy in our internal testing. ChatScript was developed by my co-founder Bruce Wilcox. Unfortunately, there is no standard for testing or third party test results. BTW, we also offer a version of our software that combines ChatScript (for accuracy) and GPT-4 (for its ability to riff).
    JPxG suggests that press coverage is the measuring stick for noteworthiness. I disagree. I will relay to you that TomTom conducted testing of what they felt to be the three strongest conversational AI systems in the market; Cerence (formerly Nuance), SoundHound and SapientX. They reported to me that SapientX outperformed the others. Additionally, Gartner recently ranked Kore AI as the top conversational AI system. Kore uses ChatScript. Gartner did not include SapientX in the evaluation as we did not meet their revenue level. DavidColleen (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find any non-trade publication sources and I'm not seeing significant coverage of the company beyond the Trump chatbot review. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does raising $2,155,753.95 by crowdfunding 2,798 people make it more notable? https://www.startengine.com/offering/SAPIENTX 90.214.57.60 (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. As noted above by a co-founder, there are very little sources and this may be WP:TOOSOON. HighKing++ 15:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks HighKing. Your comments help me to understand your evaluation criteria. Using press articles to validate facts works well for topics such as baseball, but for deeply technical topics, such as conversational AI, I don't know a single person in the press versed enough in the topic to write a solid article without the input of someone like myself or Bruce Wilcox. Instead, they write about what is fashionable, such as LLM's this week. There is even large institutional bias, that I have encountered, at the university level. One head of an AI department at a Finnish university to me that "if it's not machine learning, it's not AI". This of course is silly.
    Nonetheless, I believe that I can support most of the new facts, listed above, with multiple documents. Is it okay to proceed with this? DavidColleen (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi DavidColleen, based on what you've said above, you may wish to consider the following. There are different standards required for supporting "facts" within the article to those we use to establish whether a topic is notable. So, for example, "facts" can be supported by *any* source which meets our criteria as a *reliable* source as per WP:RS. Sources that may be used to establish notability need to meet a different standard. Also, different topic categories may have their own guidelines which provide better explanations on what sources will meet the criteria. For companies, we use GNG/WP:NCORP and I've summarised the standards for sources which may be used to establish notability above. Be aware, this current process of AfD is only concerned with notability, not with the facts. Adding more sources to support some of the factual content may not lead to assisting in establishing notability. As you've acknowledged above, establishing notability for specialised companies is difficult because articles in newspapers are often written by journalists who may not have sufficient knowledge of the topic company. Similarly, your comment about the head of the AI department appears (to me) to be directed at the technical area of "machine learning vs AI", not at this specific company. Many years ago somebody summarised our requirements as "If the company is notable, somebody unconnected will have written something decent about it" and that still holds true albeit we've had to clarify what is meant by "somebody unconnected" and "written something decent". HighKing++ 14:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to establish consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Baldwin[edit]

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

Fails GNG and is insufficiently supported by reliable sources Paul W (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Paul W (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Paul, I've added missing citations to the article. Is there anything else needed to keep the article from deletion? HermanDF (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Sorry User:HermanDF, but the added citations are only fleeting or passing mentions, not significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Paul W (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, which parts need to be removed to keep the article from deletion? or which parts qualify as independant/scondary?
    In other words, how do we keep this article on wikipedia? HermanDF (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Hi, User:HermanDF. Any significant assertion which cannot be substantiated by at least one reliable source could/should be removed. Reference 1 appears to be a self-penned press release; refs 2, 3, 5-7 and 9 are routine/passing mentions; refs 4 and 10 are from IMDb - which "is user-generated, and the site is considered unreliable by a majority of editors" (see WP:IMDB); which leaves ref 8 (seemingly brief mentions in a book, which I cannot verify). The subject therefore fails WP:GNG - it is not suitable for a stand-alone article in Wikipedia as Baldwin has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Sorry, but, in short, I don't think this can be kept on Wikipedia. Paul W (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your help in clarifying Paul. I've removed the majority of the sources and added a reliable source that is independent of the subject. HermanDF (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Hi, User:HermanDF. The key GNG requirement remains significant coverage. Paul W (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would any of the references I removed be significant enough? Or what is required to qualify as significant? HermanDF (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Hi, User:HermanDF. Thanks for asking. I should have explained. WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Basically, 'significant' is an assessment of the depth or extent of coverage; it will give detail that extends beyond routine or passing mentions. As previously discussed, several of the sources previously used for the article were passing mentions. Paul W (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paul, I've added missing citations to the article. HermanDF (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything else needed to keep the article from deletion? HermanDF (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not seeing the depth of coverage needed to show that WP:GNG is met or to justify a WP:BLP. --Kinu t/c 19:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Agreed with nomination, person fails to meet WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. 1keyhole (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No coverage for this person that I can find. Being quoted in a book isn't the stuff of notability here and as explained in the comment above, most are trivial mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2024 (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 14:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andean new-age music[edit]

Andean new-age music (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)

(Procedurally declined PROD) Not well documented in RS, not all mentions (mostly in the context of specific acts) appear to be referring to the same thing. The only non-stub this article could develop into is a WP:COATRACK. Mach61 (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Peru. Mach61 (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not really a topic by itself. Certainly there are Andean influences heard in some new-age music, but this stuff is not its own genre. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 11 February 2024 (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/2024_February_11&oldid=1208826665"