Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< March 25	March 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to Muffuletta. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olive salad[edit]

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

Non-notable salad that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. Contents of this article could be covered in 1 or 2 sentences on the Muffuletta article. BaduFerreira (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Muffuletta. Per nom, this is not a distinct enough product with sourcing specific to it to need a stand-alone article. All sources here are in the context of the muffaletta. Reywas92^Talk 13:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as opposed to redirect, to save some information and sources. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I realize this is not a typical argument at AfD, but you can also put it on pasta. Olive salad is associated with the muffuletta, and to be sure some version of it will be on every muffuletta, but you can also add it to any cold cut sandwich. You can drop a spoonful on an actual salad with leaves. I think it will be hard to establish notability for olive salad away from its parent sandwich because even recipes or articles talking about it in another context will still likely mention the sandwich. If it can't be kept though, it should likely be merged rather redirected or deleted outright to give more context for people unfamiliar with the spread. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:05, 31 March 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 Coleslaw#Variations and similar dishes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broccoli slaw[edit]

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

Non-notable salad that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coleslaw#Variations_and_similar_dishes. Substituting one ingredient for another doesn't make it a separately notable concept needing a stand-alone article. Reywas92^Talk 13:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge and redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 30 March 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 Watermelon#Culinary. And Merge to any other relevant articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watermelon salad[edit]

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

Non-notable salad that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Watermelon#Culinary or Fruit salad. Just because there are diverse recipes that happen to use a certain main ingredient doesn't mean it needs a stand-alone article. Reywas92^Talk 13:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is another one to selectively merge and redirect as suggested. I would especially keep the New York Times recipe as a good source to keep. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – agree. MaskedSinger (talk) 20:30, 1 April 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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. This should be a procedural close since there is no deletion nomination statement but given that the nominator eventually gives a rationale, I'll close this as Redirect. But really, you can't just tag an article and be done with it. BEFORE, remember? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KPFW-LD[edit]

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

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: the nom may have failed to provide any explanation, but this DTV America/HC2/Innovate station — only marginally older than the stations actually started by the company — has the usual lack of significant coverage (or prospect of any) to meet the GNG. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mvcg66b3r: It would help if you provided a rationale for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:47, 27 March 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!} 22:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speakerpunch[edit]

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

Their only claim to notability is winning the 'Saturnus Beachbattle' contest in 2013. This award has zero coverage and neither does the band, clearly not passing WP:BAND InDimensional (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Netherlands. InDimensional (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage for this band that I can find in RS. Gsearch is simply their website and various download or streaming sites. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tried .nl sites, you only get about 5 hits in Gnews for concert listings. Oaktree b (talk) 23:43, 26 March 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!} 22:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partiboi69[edit]

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

Very little reliable sources and fails WP:SINGER Nagol0929 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Nagol0929 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nagol0929 (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable sources in the article but while searching I have found that he has written some Medium articles,[1] has released alot of songs that are on Genius,[2] and is on BBC Radio 1's residency.[3] But, this does not prove notability.

GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO, most of the sources are not independent, would need more independent sources such as mainstream press. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that this page was already contested for speedy deletion from the messages on the talk page. Some of the sources have also been analysed by Jack4576 here — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenBootWizard276 (talk • contribs)

In my opinion the analysis is incorrect as several of the sites he listed as secondary, reliable, and independent were in fact not secondary, and not independent as they were literally promoting his show or appearance somewhere. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Suonii180 (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Contributor892z (talk) 18:31, 2 April 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 Tijuana Sweetheart. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Siegman[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. Nothing in her article demonstrates notability, and I couldn't find any meaningful coverage on her elsewhere beyond a source I'm unsure on the reliability of ([4]). λ NegativeMP1 17:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Video games. λ NegativeMP1 17:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tijuana Sweetheart where she is mentioned and a believable search target. Otherwise, however, I am not seeing WP:NARTIST being passed by the current sourcing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough sources available for a standalone article. @T.C.G. [talk] 05:47, 27 March 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 11:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MAC service data unit[edit]

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

Per previous PROD: Exists, but doesn't meet WP:N. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was deleted via the aforementioned PROD, but then REFUND'd (by me) to draft space so that the requestor could address the notability issue raised in the prod. That issue has not been addressed, but the requestor moved it to article space. Requested they move it back to draft, but they declined. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. UtherSRG (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a DICDEF with a photo. For the two sentences of text, we could add them to another article, but I don't see what the point would be. And to be honest, I've read these sentences and still have no idea what this article talks about. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the requester. MAC service data unit or MSDU is mentioned in Frame aggregation, Protocol data unit, IEEE 802.11e-2005, Maximum transmission unit, IEEE 802.11n-2009 and Jumbo frame. I believe there were a few other incoming links before this was deleted via PROD. Removing this definition from the encyclopedia doesn't seem to serve readers. If the consensus is that the article needs to be deleted we should look for WP:ATDs to help readers through the jargon soup of computer networking in its absence. ~Kvng (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Here are the first few Books search results: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. ~Kvng (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The term is indeed very widely used - and trivial in a proper context, see definition at [10]: in non-OSI model networks (the ones actually used) this is just the data that MAC exchanges with the application ("user"), or LLC (if there is an LLC sublayer). Without an explicit context the definitions become hard to understand, like the one here. To provide context, it is easier to merge someplace where the context is provided, say, into Media access controller. --Dimawik (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do !vote. I would accept merger into media access controller as WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I did not vote is simple: the proper solution involves a lot of work, as it requires describing the overview of the IEEE 802 stack somewhere, with a diagram and names of service units passing through the interfaces. The best place at this moment is IEEE 802, but it currently contains very little information and is mostly dedicated (properly) to the standardization group itself. A new article, similar to OSI model should be written, and this will be a proper place to merge. It is also possible that links to this non-existent (unless I am missing something) article might actually help to rewrite this article. I don't mind writing the article (IEEE 802 reference model) myself, by I am short on time right now, and the task is non-trivial. Dimawik (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to make things great with this WP:AFD - WP:NOTCLEANUP. We do want to avoid making things worse. I agree that this article lacks context and have just tagged it as such. There is a lot of room for improvement in this area but just deleting bits of it around the edges is not improvement and it is not the Wikipedia way - WP:DEMOLISH, WP:NODEADLINES. ~Kvng (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your reasoning. I will add the bare minimum of context right now. Dimawik (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Media access controller is a Redirect so not a proper Merge target. Would its target article, Medium access control be acceptable or are there more arguments to Delete or Keep this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see previous relisting comment and reply to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:, I believe Dimawik already answered that above The proper solution involves a lot of work, as it requires describing the overview of the IEEE 802 stack somewhere, with a diagram and names of service units passing through the interfaces. There is more than a merge required if we want to cover this subject as part of another article e.g. Medium access control. ~Kvng (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My only question is that a page was being proposed as a Redirect/Merge target article that was a Redirect. So, I was asking if they wanted that Redirect's target article to be the actual target or whether they would prefer a different target article. That was my question. I'd still like to hear from Dimawik and UtherSRG who favored this outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a merge or redirect to medium access control would work for me. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG, would you be able to do that merge? I find the same issue that Dimawik identified. Just merging MAC service data unit without providing context would not improve either the source or destination articles. ~Kvng (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't do the merge. BLAR is fine for now. When you or someone else gets the time and patience, they can easily see the info in the history. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion now is to Draftify it. I will merge the material into (IEEE 802 reference model that I put into my scheduke. I have made a picture already. In these coordinates, the MSDU is just the data passing through MSAP. Dimawik (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimawik, Thanks for your interest in helping with this. Why do you think we need to draftify? Is there some harm done to readers by leaving it in mainspace until the work can be done? It seems like it is a likely search term and I think it would be better for readers to see an unfinished article than nothing at all. Leaving it in mainspace also offers the chance that another expert will see it and help us out with improvements. ~Kvng (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article as-is is not very helpful, but is indeed not hurtful either. So your (keep) proposal also makes sense. Dimawik (talk) 03:27, 1 April 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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Elisabeth von Humboldt[edit]

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

Notability only through her sons, and WP:NOTINHERITED. Present on 2 other projects, but they are entitled to make different decision. There is some evidence of being a benefactor (supporting the local parish), but that itself was inherited. The pages of Wilhelm and Alexander seem sufficiently well-developed that a merge wouldn't be helpful. Klbrain (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what to answer? The page poses a problem for the person's notoriety. But, from the perspective of diversity in Wikipedia, I find it interesting to have the perspective of female personalities. In general, the existence of biographical writings is used to determine whether or not an article is admissible. Here, it was the subject of an article in a book, but in the 19th. From a diversity perspective, I find this article important. In itself, it does not bother people who are not interested in the subject. And people who are interested will learn something there. The article is neither a subject of contention nor a subject of controversy, it is not about a recent person, nor of self-promotion. Where is the problem ? She hasn't done enough work to have the right to appear in an encyclopedia?History of women is important itself, simple conclusion. And in the 18th, be a mother was a job. There are 5 or 6 pages linked to this page. Marion (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must add something : german page exist first. Then, I translated the page from german to french. Then I decided to give an emphasis the this article, by making a translation to english. So, in french, when I created the article, nothing was told about it. In german, I dont know as the article exist previously. Marion (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I also want to add an argument : in wikipédia, there are more men biographies than women (statistics). And, when I read them, as I am for a long time a wikipedia reader, I noticed we often read that men "became" something, someone, an artist, a politician etc. by their own. But, here is also a part of feminist ideas, I find important to explain people grew up in an environnement. In social sciences, we used to consider the environnement as much as the person. So this page has also this aim, to remain in the 18th, people could became scientist when women were activ in the education. Because there were no schools. And because, men, with letterature wont organize themselves for children. Women did the link for that, they were central. So : I find Marie-Elisabeth has a full place in wikipedia by her own. For the reason why, research in that field progress (role of women in the Royalties times) in social sciences and this article can be developped in the future. We are more in a time where we find informations about women than in a time where we consider women are part of their husband life or "only mother". Be a mother is something, women who read wikipedia, can find as as much important than being politician. Because, there are so many ways to be mother than to be politician. And not all women dream to be politcian or artist or scientist. So my hypothesis, is, that more women would read wikipedia if there are more diversities in biographies as well. But of course, it is an hypothesis made because I studied social scientist, I used to consider feminists ideas. And in France there is wikipedia project quite activ, but I am not part of it directly, I follow it from far, it is called "the without pages" (les sans pages) where people create biographies of forgotten women. Marion (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to conclude : I really don't appreciate the method. I am very strict on that way even when I contribute in french wikipedia (my main activity anyway). When something hurt someone but, when that problem dont bring a real deficcience to the full project of wikipedia, a simple discussion inside the article page of discussion, would be enough to start a debate. Always bring deleting process to start a discussion is an abuse. If we do that, wikipedia dont increase, but decrease, more quickly than social sciences increase. So do whatever you want, I dont appreciate the way. Marion (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be expanded to say more about the subject. Nearly everything in the article currently is not about her - it is about her family, her husbands, and what happened with her bequest after she died. Marion Leconte, I take your point, but the Notability rules are the same for men and women - the question is whether there is enough material about her (not the people around her, but her) to support an article. At the moment it isn't there, but I will be happy to change my view if extra relevant material can be added.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for historical reasons. The article is richly sourced and explains her family relationships, her strong interest in the education of her sons, and the significant position she inherited.--Ipigott (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as owner of the Falkenberg estate which she remodeled heavily. Axisstroke (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I proposed, maintaining my delete position. Regarding the Falkenberg estate, the expansion there can readily be described on the Falkenberg (Berlin) page (which is what is done over on .de). If family relationships are seen as important, these should should sit on the articles of one of the sons (or, indeed, why not for one of the husbands). Klbrain (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain my arguments. I understand the point of view for deleting this article. But, in the reason of diversity, we need to accept, motherhood and planning education of children is important as much as people who organised wars, planned destructions or else. No place for her in her husband pages : they don't exist (if I dont mistake). Marion (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of the motherhood and fatherhood and planning the educations is undisputable, but this isn't a good case study of any of these. The source that support Marie's maternal care for her children is a 19th century hagiography "The mothers of great men and women ...". The other key sources, Minguet (1969) has a quite different view (automated translation of paragraph 19 of 'Première période') Marie Elisabeth von Humboldt, was a haughty, cold woman who had little emotional relationship with her children. After the disappearance of her husband, who was a "...man of pleasant trade, of lively and cheerful conversation"... it is on the contrary, "... an atmosphere of compassed formalism and boredom created around her Madame de Humboldt mother". Klbrain (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is a personnal point of view (yours). But people spoke about her, she has a public notoriety and there is a picture in common, a category in common, an article in german, and 6 english spoken articles who mention her name. Wikipedia speaks about people who have been previously subject of books or studies, which is her case. Mothers, good in education, are not always warmfull. Education of today, principle of "love" (children's care) was not main stream at that time, I could add studies about that topic int this article, if the problem points there. Marion (talk) 06:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sourcing is sufficient to make Marie-Elisabeth independently notable from her sons, especially when taking German sources into account. Cortador (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of precedents of parents deeply and actively involved in their children's' education and starting their careers - call it the well accepted Mama Rose exception. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 30 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of former programs broadcast on TV Globo[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST, lacks any sourcing whatsoever. Let'srun (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Lists, and Brazil. Let'srun (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a highly-common practice to split off older programming from the main page (i.e., List of programs broadcast by TV Globo). It does not need sourcing because it meets a basic WP:LISTPURP of a category turned into a list. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for the same reason explained by editor above (Why? I Ask). Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 26 March 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!} 00:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

73 Sects (Hadith)[edit]

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

Fail WP:GNG. Topic should not have a stand-alone article as WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Zsohl ^(Talk) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Zsohl ^(Talk) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are countless hadiths. They are complicated, potentially speculative and certainly contested (see Hadith and Criticism of hadith). Giving this one its own article risks giving the topic undue weight. While I'm not sure this is a WP:NOTDIRECTORY issue (nor is it an indiscriminate inclusion of information, as the author has covered some commentary on the text), I agree it is not appropriate for a standalone article. Local Variable (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm actually seeing quite a lot of reliable sources on Google Scholar and Google Books discussing this particular hadith, many of which refer to it as being particularly famous (e.g. here, here). I think this easily meets notability guidelines. There are a lot of hadith, but this one seems to have had particular cultural impact -- and I note that we do have pages on individual bible chapters.— Moriwen (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 73 Sects should merit a standalone article. Dawn has a detailed 11 year old article on The mystery of 73 sects. There appears a nice journal article, The Influence of the 73 Sects Ḥadīth on the Classification of Theological Sects in Islamic Heresiographical Literature, and another one, Ibn Taymiyyah on the Hadith of the 73 Sects, and a book, that adds on more to this. This much should help pass basic WP:GNG. However, the article does require some work. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly covered in secondary scholarly literature as a standalone subject of note that has influenced the theology and culture. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This hadith of the 73 sects clearly meets the notability guidelines outlined in WP:GNG. Scholarly articles like "The Influence of the 73 Sects Ḥadīth...] " and news pieces like "The mystery of 73 sects" as mentioned by other editors and according to my findings demonstrate its significance within Islamic discourse. Similar to individual chapters of the Bible having dedicated articles, this hadith's particular cultural impact justifies its standalone presence on Wikipedia.GAGIWOR (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. I haven't heard it by this name and number, but the debate about which sect is true and will get you into Heaven is a well-known concept, even to educated non-Moslems like me. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 30 March 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 12:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish International Connection of New York[edit]

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

This is one of many Jewish Associations but I cannot find anything particularly notable about it. Suggest delete unless significant events or connections can be found. Newhaven lad (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 26 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hafnia Chamber Orchestra[edit]

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

I cannot find any references to the Orchestra after 2012 - and the earlier ones are merely passing references to its existence. Newhaven lad (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is sufficient sourcing in the article, though if there are no references past 2012, the tense of the article can simply be changed from "is" to "was". desmay (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has gone on international tour so satisfies WP:NMUSIC. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is little additional sourcing that I could find beyond what is already in the article. Danish newspaper archives should have more sources, especially if it's been defunct for a decade but that needs better search techniques (and/or better Danish) than I have to identify them. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 26 March 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!} 01:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AdriPSX[edit]

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

Non-notable PlayStation emulator. Lack of SIGCOV. I tried to PROD, but can't becuase a PROD was attempted in 2009. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG completely. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No SIGCOV exists at all. Only shady download reposting websites. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:25, 26 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mangal[edit]

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

All WP:RAJ era sources (apart from Sharma). Nishant Shashikant Sharma's work was published the International Journal of Research which has been deprecated as a predatory publisher as per here-[11] Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Pakistan. Skynxnex (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many sources on Google and some are in Hari Singh Nalwa. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources in the page Hari Singh Nalwa pertaining to this battle are reliable. Could you list specific sources which meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability rather than referring to nebulous sources on Google? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in Hari Singh Nalwa are Sharma's IJR source which cannot be used on Wikipedia, a source published by the Sikh Missionary College-[12], an organization judging by its nomenclature and website meant only to propagate the Sikh religion; by no means is this a salient educational institution nor has it published any peer reviewed books or journals. The last source is a Google snapshot-[13], again from a organization that publishes hagiographies as opposed to rigorous scholarly works. The book cannot even be found anywhere on the Internet apart from that Google snippet. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 26 March 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!} 01:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casanova (Valery Leontiev song)[edit]

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

Russian song. The article currently has one reference: YouTube with Leontiev's performance.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 21:44, 19 March 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 March 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage online of this song to warrant it having it's own page InDimensional (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 26 March 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!} 23:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Masekesa[edit]

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Zimbabwe. JTtheOG (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of suitable redirect Looks to fail WP:GNG, and with no lists of Zimbabwean cricketers there's no suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:39, 27 March 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 as notability was established. (non-admin closure)‎ Lenny Marks (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Museo de Ciencia y Tecnologia Veracruz[edit]

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

Article was previously nominated under the name Museo Interactivo Kaná. The result was no-consensus with paltry participation. In my opinion, article clearly fails wp:GNG and wp:NORG. There are only three sources provided two of which are about particular incidents and do not constitute SigCov, and only one of which that might count as SigCov about some new exhibits that were added while the museum was under a different name. The Spanish-language article also lacks sources and after conducting a search I think that it will not be possible to find multiple sources to demonstrate notability. The article has been tagged in CAT:NN for 14 years and I believe it is not notable, and should be deleted. Lenny Marks (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Lenny Marks (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage in news sources here: [14], [15], [16] (and more. A google news search for: [museo interactivo Xalapa] catches the various different names of this institution). It also appears as an attraction of the city in guide books: [17]. Furius (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Furius has identified enough sources to show notability. The Mexican Government entry gives information that could be used to expand the article. A search on images confirms that this is a substantial museum discussed by many sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Furius @Aymatth2, thank you for collecting additional sources for the article. The problem I found was that the news sources are generally lacking wp:sigcov (One mentions that protesters were outside the museum but doesn't discuss the institution itself at all, another's entire reference is that a minister discusses money in the budget for the museum and the last is almost an exact copy of a source that is already in the article [18] about workers being fired.) The guide book entry, though, might count.

Unless you disagree with my analysis of the sources individually, I guess the question becomes whether the several non-significant mentions collectively constitute SigCov here. Thoughts? --Lenny Marks (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The museum is run by the State of Veracruz. The Mexico Government entry would count as reliable, independent and in-depth. I have not read the many news articles, but yes, 25 separate sources giving a paragraph each on some aspect or event of the museum would cumulatively count as significant in-depth coverage. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2 thanks, I had missed that link in your previous comment. I will add a reflist to the article and withdraw the nomination. Lenny Marks (talk) 22:44, 27 March 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!} 23:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tinashe Muchawaya[edit]

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Zimbabwe. JTtheOG (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of suitable redirect Looks to be a WP:GNG fail, and with no suitable lists to redirect to for Zimbabwean cricketers, there's no WP:ATD here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:38, 27 March 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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) Styyx (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arka Sokaklar[edit]

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

~~Non notable turksih tv series~~ LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: No apparent WP:BEFORE and no clear rationale for the supposed lack of notability. See [19] and [20]. Arka Sokaklar is quite a well-known Turkish series that has been broadcast for a very long time. As can be seen through the links I provided, just a quick search of the name returns a plethora of publications, studies, and whatnot on the series. Aintabli (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aintabli. While the state of the sourcing in the article is bad, there are plenty of reliable sources for the show. I would also look at the Turkish Wikipedia article on the show which is much better sourced.

GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no way it's not notable, it's one of the longest-running shows in Turkey.Tehonk (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn anyone can close. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:45, 27 March 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 (will pursue merger instead). (non-admin closure)‎ Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barnens adventskalender[edit]

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

This article barely qualifies as notable, and could be summarized better here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Sweden. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first installment in what would become a fairly important tradition in Swedish Christmas celebrations. As the radio advent calendar has been an annual tradition since 1957, I don't think it's a good idea to summarize each year in the main article. These are individual works, the content varying from year to year. /Julle (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable precursor to the current calendar, more sources are available. Notability is not at issue here. If you feel that merging this as a "backgound" section makes more sense I suggest you withdraw this nomination and propose a merger on the talk page per our usual procedures. Cheers. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reflecting on this, it may be a better move to do that, given we would want to save the content. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to think about is that Sveriges Radio's Christmas Calendar is mainly a list of the individual annual programs. There were more than 60 annual editions of this show, and for the most part, each of them has their own Wikipedia page. It's probably possible to merge all of them together into the core page (or create a long "list of programs" page) but it's a bigger undertaking than just merging this first program into the series page. Toughpigs (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And for that reason among others I would probably !vote-oppose should a merger be proposed. I'm just being a stickler on procedure here :P Draken Bowser (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really think it works best as a separate article, to be honest, with the Sveriges Radio's Christmas Calendar as an article about the phenomenon rather than as a collection of the individual instances which make up the tradition. /Julle (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Barely qualifies as notable" is not a thing. If there's enough coverage to satisfy GNG, then it's notable. This nomination should provide some analysis of the existing sources in the article. Toughpigs (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toughpigs and Julle. This is a separate work from the yearly tradition itself and 'barely notable' is still notable. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per coverage. Per WP:GNG. Personally I find this nomination weird.BabbaQ (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Barely notable still is notable. Killarnee (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep procedurally. If a merger is the ultimate goal, then AfD is the wrong place for it. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 30 March 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!} 23:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Umar Arshad[edit]

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

fails to meet relevant WP:POLITICIAN as well basic WP:GNG —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It literally says, "local politician", without any allegation of notability based on the position. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 30 March 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!} 23:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aircoasters[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing RS which could be considered JMWt (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to satisfy even the bare minimum of pictures or discussion to meet WP:V, let alone notability BrigadierG (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Might as well not exist for all the sources that are available (none). StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:22, 26 March 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 Green brothers. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hank & John[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Looks to me like WP:GNG just isn't met here. A 2016 AfD resulted in keep based on no credible assertions of GNG-contributing sources. The three that were brought contain no significant discussion of the subject, and as it stands eight years later, there still isn't much media attention on this podcast, and the article's never outgrown largely being based on primary, non-independent sources. If someone finds something I didn't on a WP:BEFORE, awesome, but I don't see it out there. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Internet. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~Vlogbrothers~~ Green brothers. I agree with the assessment in NOM - Hank Green and John Green, the podcast's hosts, are clearly notable and have extensive secondary coverage. Vlogbrothers has less coverage, but enough to be notable, and seems like the best article to cover collaborations between the two - this podcast is arguably an extension of that channel. BrigadierG (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, Vlogbrothers is specifically their Youtube channel; I would suggest Green brothers as a merge target. Radagast (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that would be a better merge target, I was unaware of its existence. BrigadierG (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the show passes WP:NPODCAST and WP:GNG. There are sources in Vulture, Erie Reader, Mashable, and Tampa Bay Times. I'm not a huge fan of listicles, however, these are more than a short reprint of the show's description with each article's coverage coming in at about 200 words. I would generally consider that more than a trivial mention. There are a few shorter ones out there in sources like LifeHacker, The Skinny, and The Hindu. Some might consider these enough (i.e. WP:100WORDS). There were also a few articles announcing their partnership with WNYC Studios in Variety, Vulture, and TubeFilter. This article in Audacy, Inc.'s Podsauce is decent coverage, however, I'm not sure what the consensus on the source's reliability is. I would be interested in hearing what others think of Podsauce. WP:NPODCAST mentions that being on a chart is an indicator of notability. On chartable.com, the show is currently No. 7 on the Philosophy category for the United States and No. 3 in Canada. According to itunescharts.net, the show reached No. 2 on Apple's Podcast chart in 2015. TipsyElephant (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The four sources here are somewhat more than a short description, but I'm still not honestly sure that you could get a decent-shape article out of these sources. They all seem pretty thin, as capsule reviews tend to be. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: fair enough. What do you think about the reliability of Podsauce? The main thing that jumps out to me is that these reviews don't have bylines, but book reviews on websites like Publishers Weekly don't either and I would generally consider PW reliable for reviews. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no bylines does throw me – I also can't find evidence of an editorial staff, though, and I don't think PW sells books (whereas audacy looks like a podcast platform). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did some more searching and I really thought I would find more than I did. I found a 125 word piece in the The Courier-Mail via ProQuest 2108160325. I also found a few different articles in student news such as these: [21], [22], [23], [24] And another announcement about partnering with WNYC Studios: [25] Changing my !vote to a weak support to merge the article into the Green brothers. I'd be willing to perform the merge myself if no one else wants to. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BrigadierG JoshuaAuble (talk) 17:46, 30 March 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!} 23:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Digital Radio Testing Service[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing sources which could be considered. JMWt (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Germany. JMWt (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I don't even think it's worth redirecting. This could have been PROD'd to save AFD effort in my opinion. BrigadierG (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article should be deleted. The subject of the article hasn't existed for many years. Utuado (talk) 17:17, 28 March 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 18:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baking a Dream: The Theobroma Story[edit]

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

Promotional article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. As the article exists, the only source is an excerpt from the book and a plot that's probably copied straight from the back page. A WP:BEFORE check found one source from The Hindu that may be helpful - [26]. It's not really a review, more of an interview but it's at least better than what's currently there. I don't think it's enough to meet NBOOK though. Ravensfire (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and India. Ravensfire (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps redirect to an article about the two women or about the cafe, with the same name as the book. [27], scattered hits in Indian media about the pair, that mentions the book in passing... Thoughts? Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional Article for a restaurant chain. WP:PROMO ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPAM. The first source seems ok, but the second is a first-person entitled interview, which isn't. In 2024, eveybody knows we are not Pinterest or Etsy. I don't see significant coverage in independent sources, but ping me if you find something better and add it to the page. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article seems like it was made to promote the book. The plot seems overly promotional.Sk1728 (talk) 17:34, 31 March 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 11:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mariusz Latkowski[edit]

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

Original nomination statement: I couldn't find any significant coverage of this bobsleigh athlete that would meet WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. All news that came up in my searches are passing mentions (TVP Sport and Wrocław Naszemiasto), as well as silly, random namesakes. Corresponding article on Polish Wikipedia article has been tagged for not having sources except external links for 2010; no major edits since 2022. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revised nomination statement as of 13 March 2024: Despite having achieved two medals, I couldn't find enough significant coverage of this bobsleigh athlete that would meet WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Everything that came up in my searches are brief mentions (TVP Sport and Wrocław Naszemiasto), as well as silly, random namesakes. Corresponding article on Polish Wikipedia article has been tagged for not having sources except external links for 14 years; no major edits since 2022. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Poland. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Doesn't look very notable to me; won't be deleted from pl wiki where participation in Olympics grans notability, unlike here. Shrug. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject is a multiple-time international medallist in athletics and is covered by both Polish and English sources; see [28] for coverage in just one Polish newspaper. WP:ATD: Redirect to 1999 European Athletics Junior Championships where the athlete won his highest medal. --Habst (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the nomination statement was edited in Special:Diff/1213511699. It's fine to edit it, but I think it is fair to note the changes made in the discussion because the nomination is in part what we are responding to. --Habst (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Catch me if I'm wrong, but doesn't winning international medals automatically give a pass at AfD? Bearian (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Senior medals, maybe. These were underage medals, from competitions with dramatically less stadium attendance, TV time and overall media attention. However, a relatively small athletics meet might still generate more coverage than a relatively big competition in, say, canoeing Geschichte (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because "automatic notability" doesn't exist as part of WP:NSPORT. It's a guideline that "significant coverage is likely to exist", but for some people meeting the criteria (which this one doesn't anyway), there may not be that coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 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 programs broadcast by DZRH/DZRH News Television#DZRH News Television-produced. ✗plicit 12:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DZRH Hataw[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2018. No awards or any good supporting references from GBooks, GNews and GNews Archives. Alternatively, redirect to List of programs broadcast by DZRH/DZRH News Television. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 11:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by DZRH/DZRH News Television#DZRH News Television-produced Although we generally don't keep radio show articles, this has a programming list to redirect to as a good ATD. Nate • (chatter) 16:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Before we can consider redirecting, the topic should be mentioned in the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: clarified that Radyo Hataw is the televised adaptation/simulcast of DZRH Hataw in proposed target article. Lenticel ^(talk) 23:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by DZRH/DZRH News Television#DZRH News Television-produced. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 06:15, 30 March 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. This is not a "Keep" closure, this is not a "Delete" closure, this is a "No consensus" closure because I find no consensus here among editors. Many editors arguing for Delete cite a 2018 RFC decision but I found a number of discussions about policy on having articles with tables of airline destinations including Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Mass deletion of pages - question of protocol, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Should Wikipedia have lists of transportation service destinations?, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 140#Should Wikipedia have and maintain complete lists of airline destinations?, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 15#Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles (which concerns Airport articles but on the same subject of tables of airline destinations) which leave a definitive "All" decision impossible, at least for me. Also an "All" decision assumes that the quality of articles is identical or near identical among the nominated articles and it's not clear that is the case here.

Additionally, I haven't done a head count but I believe there are more editors weighing in here in this AFD than editors who participated in most of these past RFCs trying to establish a policy precedent. The 2018 RFC is now six years old, would an updated RFC come to a similar conclusion? I don't know but there are clearly a large number of editors who disagree with its conclusion. Secondly, there are enough editors voicing a preference for Merge that an outright Delete All closure would prevent any Merge from occurring. I also think this difference of policy interpretation is unreconcilable and no additional relists would help reach a firmer consensus. I fully realize that this closure will make all participating editors in this AFD unsatisfied and it is almost certain to go to Deletion review but someone had to close this discussion and so I bit the bullet.

I'm sure that whether this closure was Delete All, Keep All, Merge or No consensus, this AFD would end up at Deletion review given the division of opinion here so I advise those who are invested in this subject to go to DRV and argue whether or not this closure was appropriate. If you believe that the 2018 RFC should be reviewed 6 years later, you can take up that project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Airways destinations[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following 152 lists with the same problems:

Other lists

Per the 2018 RfC, there is consensus that lists of airline destinations do not belong on Wikipedia. A discussion at AN advised editors to nominate lists for deletion in an orderly manner and recommended that the closer of the AfD take the RfC closure into account. Since then, 24 AfDs have resulted in the deletion of more than 260 lists. I feel it's time to have a few final AfDs on the remaining lists.

The lists run counter to WP:NOT. They are indiscriminate collections of every city that an airline has flown to at any point in its history. All destinations as of this month as well as all past destinations are included. Regarding the current destinations, this is the equivalent of looking at the airline's route map – or if one is unavailable, an aggregator of flight-schedule data like Flightradar24 – copying down all the cities, and pasting them on Wikipedia. The listing of every current destination also creates a catalog of the company's services, in this case all the places that readers can fly to on a given airline. If we try to keep the lists up to date, we'll be running a newsfeed of airline destination updates, which Wikipedia should not be doing.

I am not including the other 34 stand-alone lists of airline destinations in this nomination because those include some prose that has to be copied over to the parent article first. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Bahrain, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, India, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Scotland, Australia, Fiji, New Zealand, Canada, Caribbean, Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, United States of America, and Hawaii. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I see no reason for these pages to exist. Athel cb (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That you alone see no reason for them to exist does not discount the purpose others see in these pages. Simply disregard those tabs if they aren't relevant to you, but there is no other database that hosts all this information as clearly as Wikipedia. Should it be removed from here, it quite literally will not be found elsewhere. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all in accordance with the 2018 RfC and the various WP:NOT violations (WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTTRAVEL, etc.). Rosbif73 (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These articles are not in violation of WP:NOT in the slightest. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2018 RfC should not have been binding. It was the consensus of far too few people who essentially ended up speaking for the grand majority of the internet, many of which would prefer this information remain on Wikipedia as is. If today, there was a new RfC, it's very possible a far different verdict would have been reached. An RfC from that long ago should not be invoked today, nor should a small discussion like that have set a precedent for the future. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and previous precedent. Yilloslime (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's hard to argue for most of these, which are just simple lists of destinations. I think many of these could be notable with some prose, for instance the British Airways is not a simple destination list but catalogues everywhere the airline has flown, including terminated routes, and is well sourced, which I do think is indeed encyclopaedic given the airline's international scope. All we need are sources discussing airline routes, which are indeed covered in reliable sources! The fact we would include terminated destinations doesn't violate WP:NOTTRAVEL, either. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is also incorrectly used here - these lists are by their very nature discriminate, because they have a fixed scope. Most of these fail WP:NOT only because most of them are simple listings that haven't been put into context, and I think the lead AfD article - British Airways - at least comes close to putting these into context if it doesn't already. Perhaps there are others as well. SportingFlyer T·C 19:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Indiscriminate: not discriminating or discerning; lacking in care, judgment, selectivity, etc." No careful judgment is involved in the selection of destinations. All the cities on an airline's route map are included simply because it flies there as of March 2024, and even if it flew to some random city from 1981 to 1985, that destination also gets added to the list. Sunnya343 (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you're deleting every single list on this website. SportingFlyer T·C 09:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of British Airways appears to be a comprehensive, well-researched article. It discusses some noteworthy services, e.g. the Concorde flight to New York and the Shuttle service to various British cities. However, the notion that this context (or a similar one for any other airline) can be used to justify the listing of every single destination of this carrier ever since it was established in 1974, is something I do not follow. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per past AFDs and RFC consensus. There are also different Wiki systems available across the web to to maintain such lists. Coastie43 (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per 2018 RFC. LibStar (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep Curious what this means in juxtaposition to the airport article destination tables that had its own comprehensive RfC that resulted in the lists being kept. WP:ALD for years guided us about composing lists, and the very statement put there now links us to an RfC that more or less has arguments listed in favor of keeping the lists. Does this mean, for example, that Wikipedia will eventually delete the fleet sections/lists that include current/former aircraft types operated if someone, some time from now, decides that aircraft types are advertising to the airlines, and that an airline simply operating an aircraft type is not a "careful judgement involved in selection"? Or that airport destination tables will be deleted next? What about the lists for airlines that have gone defunct, such as Wow Air and Eastern Air Lines whose lists were specifically not changing by nature from being historic, and could not possibly be used as a travel guide? There were arguments for the latter to be kept, but with the volatile nature of airlines' starting up and shutting down, how does it then only make sense to build a list for an airline that is defunct but not when it is existing prior to that? Editors are often told or reverted on in various ways about how to do something at one time with a certain guideline convenient for the sake of that person's argument, and then later told that they weren't supposed to be editing in the first place because of that person's conveniently-used argument, where the two contradict each other and the editor is at the mercy of either in an illusion of choice. It sounds as though with the direction this is going, there will be less and less reason to do any editing for airlines, airports, or aviation in general on Wikipedia. ChainChomp2 (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate; this proposal, the RfC it was based on, and a previous RfC/AfD that initially deleted 400+ lists (which included airlines both active and defunct, which would obviously have varying levels of maintenance but were both treated with the "needs to be constantly updated" reasoning, as well as two featured lists...I can't find it, but recall reading through it in case it rings a bell) would set a dangerous precedent and slippery slope that would eventually discourage any and all editing for airlines and aviation, by their very nature of being volatile and rapidly changing. Similar proposals to remove airport destination tables were also attempted but ultimately the tables were kept, even in the exhaustive manner that they are today. Why shouldn't we keep airline destination lists for similar reasons that we kept airport destination lists? Who is to say that an airline's list of destinations will be the last type of content to be discouraged and disallowed for reasons that somehow did not apply to airport destination tables, of which were more numerous than those of airlines? An airline's very operational status, types of aircraft in its fleet, company executives, business trends, and financial performance are all things that change, yet are also chronologically documented (in varying degrees).

I am also changing my stance to a "keep" vote, but would be open to merging into the main articles, if even hidden under a drop-down like the list in the proposal. I personally did this for Norse Atlantic Airways where I spun off the list as its own article once it reached a certain length (as guidelined by WP:ALD at the time), then the list was deleted (yet I was curious why other lists that I worked on to an equal format and degree of referencing were retained, namely Avelo, Breeze, and Play, which are now among those listed in this proposal), so it was merged into the main article, then deleted again. ChainChomp2 (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This reasoning is simply going off of the precedent a small & irrelevant poll conducted years ago concluded. That these articles would require too much maintenance & frequent revision is not enough of a reason to delete them, as there have been completely competent & well-educated individuals who have taken it upon themselves to ensure these pages are always the most up to date & accurate versions of themselves they can be. Wikipedia is the only database in the entire internet that is incredibly easily accessible for this information. Airlines themselves don't even have as comprehensive & clear databases as Wikipedia's. This information remains relevant to many on the internet & that few disagree with their existence on Wikipedia is not reason enough to delete them. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These tables are not an establishment of a newsfeed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a place where facts are stored. If today, there is a scientific discovery proving a past theory (that may currently be up on Wikipedia) incorrect, updating that previous theory to align with true fact is not reporting breaking news, rather providing an incredibly simple yet incredulously needed update to keep information on Wikipedia factual, staying true to its nature of being an encyclopedia. If these tables are the establishment of a newsfeed, then the grand majority of Wikipedia's content should be removed as there is much information within this encyclopedia that should be changed for it to remain a factual, credible source of accurate & concise information. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, Wikipedia should not be documenting all the periodic changes in airline schedules, e.g. the fact that British Airways will resume seasonal service to Izmir on 18 May 2024, or that Sun Country Airlines will start flying to Boise on 19 June 2024. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And why not? It's encyclopedic that Izmir and London are connected, or that Boise is connected to wherever that flight will go. SportingFlyer T·C 16:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are Fan Wiki sites that are now available for the airline fans to establish their own Wiki for who wish to keep an updated list of destinations for their airlines. Whilst there's been arguments in the numerous past AFDs why the information breaches on WP:NOT, such a suggestion of moving such lists to a dedicated fan wiki could be useful, where they can also list the exact date of service, the exact aircraft type and so forth on the dedicated fan wiki, which at this stage wouldn't be suited on the Wikipedia. Coastie43 (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These historical destination lists are encyclopedic and the RFCs stated do not support this AFD proposal of removing historic destinations. To put a more clear delineation - this AFD request cites discussions and RFC's that are all about maintaining/keeping lists "up to date". Ignoring that isolated focus, the proposed articles for deleted contain lists of historical destinations as a well cited/detailed information relevant to the history of that airline. (eg: the case of the history of British Airways to ChainChomp2's point). Removing these historical, indelible/unchanging facts (well cited and structured) runs contrary to the aim of Wikipedia. These historical lists of destinations do not fall afoul of any of the WP:NOT or WP:NOTDIRECTORY. These are cited I propose the correct action is to adhere to WP:SS editing guideline and WP:AVOIDSPLIT by moving any standalone lists back into their respective (all are associated by name already) historical airline page under a heading similar to: historical destinations.DigitalExpat (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To further expand/clarify my opinion - I continue to agree with the points and proposed potential solutions to improve Wikipedia's information as described by: @ChainChomp2. (and well worded objectivity by @SportingFlyer ) I would also support a Merge solution as a psuedo reversing of WP:AVOIDSPLIT.

To attempt to be more Objective and facilitate productive discourse here, I would like to opine there hasn't been a clear and indelible justification for deletion in this AfD. I'd like to restate the current proposal for deletion and address them, it stands to completely remove cited, structured, encyclopedic articles because:

1 - "The lists run counter to WP:NOT. They are indiscriminate collections[...]" - Can this be explained more? I'm checking the list now for all listed criteria and I don't see the connection here:

a) "Summary-only descriptions of works"

b) "Lyrics databases"

c) "Excessive Listings of Unexplained Statistics"

d) "Exhaustive Logs of Software Updates"

2 - (slippery slope argument) The articles are a "equivalent of looking at the airline's route map" - Explicitly not the case for most of these (properly maintained) lists, route maps do not discuss past/future routes that form a history and detailed description of this specific topic (Airline X)

3 - and "listing of every current destination also creates a catalog of the company's services [WP:NOTCATALOG] - How so? Even on Point #1 of WP:NOTCATALOG - it cites WP:LISTCRIT which the lists are well suited for based on WP:CSC. And if it is referring to "company's services", a list of flights no longer operated by a carrier is hardly advertising or promoting sales.

4. - "[...] or if one is unavailable, an aggregator of flight-schedule data like Flightradar24" - I don't see flight schedules mentioned in these lists, rather than destinations served at some point, defining and supporting the history and notability of the airline itself. Two entirely different lists and purposes and not served by flight schedule aggregators.

5 - "[...]If we try to keep the lists up to date, we'll be running a newsfeed of airline destination updates" To have lists covering decades of operation, describing and defining the airline through its services is hardly a newsfeed and doesn't meet any of the 4 points of WP:NOTNEWS, I would suggest showing current active destinations is strongly aligned the opening line of: Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage

While WP:AFDDISCUSS reminds us that WP is not a democracy/majority vote does not determine if an article is to be deleted or not, I think the more open discourse before it can be agreed that the removal of well cited, structured, encyclopedic knowledge and information from Wikipedia is the right action to improve Wikipedia. Currently I personally don't believe this litmus test has been achieved to date. DigitalExpat (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll bite. I vehemently disagree that there "hasn't been a clear and indelible justification for deletion in this AfD". I'm also concerned that your critique zooms in on specific lines of the policy text. Fundamentally we are governed by the five pillars, most of which are explicitly non-negotiable. Due to imperfections in human language and psychology no constitutional text will ever be unequivocal – interpretation is required. Due to our processes interpretation is left to the consensus of the wider community, and the various language versions are given latitude to hash out the specifics. Sometimes these interpretations are codified into WP:PAGs, but consensus is king whether it has been codified or not. The only thing consensus can't do is to establish procedurs clearly against non-negotiable principles (projects that do may attract attention over at meta).

What I'm getting at is that those of us who haven't said more than "NOT" or "NOTCATALOGUE" are not just arguing that these articles are prohibited by the policy, but rather that they constitute "indiscriminate [collections] of information" and are outside a scope described as analogous to "specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (quoting the first pillar). That this is the correct interpretation of our "constitution" was decided in the RfC (the open discourse you call for already happened six years ago), and as I've stressed before some form of centralized discussion outside the scope of this AFD would be required to overturn that decision. Proponets of inclusion would be wise to explain clearly why these types of lists are actually within the scope of our mission of creating an encyclopedia. Stating that the information is verified, interesting or even citing individual lines of policy text does not cut it. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the close of that discussion is that there was agreement these broadly violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which was the result of the close. I think that as written, an article like List of Icelandair destinations does present simple listings without context, and that most of these articles from 2018 were similar to that one - just a table with a list. I think most of us would agree it's difficult to see how List of TWA destinations is useful as written, and that those two examples violate WP:NOT. However, I think that can be clearly remedied for many of these airlines through prose - List of Belavia destinations isn't great, but it at least has started to provide context for the places where an airline flies, which is essentially necessary for understanding an airline's scope in an encyclopaedic manner - I do have at least a couple books, now in storage, which talks about airline fleets and destinations from a pre or early internet time, showing it's clearly within the scope of a "specialised encyclopedia." The other problem is WP:INDISCRIMINATE is often substituted for WP:IDLI - the sole problem here is that the information isn't properly contextualised. SportingFlyer T·C 14:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is the other way around, that it is not actually clear where to draw the line on content for a project analogous to "specialized encyclopedias", especially with respect to these lists, hence the division. But wherever there is uncertainty as to the interpretation of the principles the wider community gets to decide where that line is drawn. If the argument is that the lists could hypothetically be something else it would actually be of great benefit to that argument if someone would create one of those hypotheticals (to show what it would look like), but this is a volunteer project and no one is required to. Draken Bowser (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it would actually be of great benefit to that argument if someone would create one of those hypotheticals – List of Braathens destinations (not included in this AfD), which is a former featured list, might be an example. It has a detailed history section and notes the start and stop dates of all destinations. However, one of the reasons it was demoted was that the history section largely repeats prose in the parent article. I would add that the presence of that prose does not change the fact that the list goes against WP:NOTDB. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list mentioned also has the effect of an encyclopedia, and the reasons for deletion aren't logical, instead, it is related to destroying all pages. As commented by DigitalExpat, removing the page directly violates Wikipedia's rules and goals. Other pages with other languages, like Korean, don't remove the pages. Instead, they update the page to provide detailed, updated information to members and non-members (ex. visitors). same opinion as DigitalExpat, it needs to move any standalone lists back into their respective to preserve and update all the mentioned pages. And it is the right way to keep the Wikipedia's rules. KorFlyer88 (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the "notes"-sections among other things prove that this is not merely a list of historic destinations, but exactly the kind of list which consensus has determined is disallowed according to NOT. This AFD does not have the authority to overrule that RfC due to CONLEVEL. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Draken Bowser! In case your response was referring to my comment, just wanted to help clarify that I was referring to the lists of historic destinations in some of these article proposed for deletion (eg: BA destinations list), not reopening the RfC discussions that were cited. (These encyclopedic entries of historic destinations should be returned to their parent articles' sections about airlines' histories (in BA's case an entire sub article under Wikipedia:Summary style dedicated to it) which is different than maintaining active lists etc...), This proposed AfD is to delete all information, including historic destinations which is not addressed by the RfCs, cheers! DigitalExpat (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there is nothing about the BA list that suggests it is a historic exposé. It is not framed as such in the lead. There is the "notes" section, which lists whether the route is currently operational or not. Lastly, it would need to contain some basic historic facts, such as the first year the route was flown. In its current format it constitutes a violation of NOTDIRECTORY. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draken Bowser, I want to inform you that five of the lists I included in this nomination (Aeroperú, Air New Zealand, Avelo, Breeze, and Play) do mention when the destinations began and ended. However, I still consider them to be indiscriminate collections of information. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Some of these articles have very extensive sourcing. I have spent countless hours over many years finding reliable sources for each entry for former cities that were once served by airlines in the past. This is why I'm trying to make improvements to Wikipedia to benefit the public at large. These lists have a lot of historical information combined together that you cannot find anywhere else. CHCBOY (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The few destinations which are particularly notable for some reason or other can be mentioned in the airline articles Chidgk1 (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant point mentioned in an RfC for removing airport destination tables (and there are far more airport articles with their own lists than there were airlines with destination lists) was that if one tries to describe a few "notable" destinations with prose, who determines which or how many are "notable" and how many aren't? The contention in and of itself would lead to edit wars, or alternatively, once some destinations are described with prose, the full list isn't that far away. ChainChomp2 (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have already done this quite well in the respective parent articles. Note how the Air India article incorporates destinations such as Trivandrum and Nairobi into the wider history of the airline, or how the Drukair page discusses the route to Gaya. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All. Per nom. Wikipedia is not a travel agency for Airline List of destinations and such lists do not belong here. RangersRus (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many lists included in the proposal are for airlines that have since gone defunct or inactive, and would serve zero purpose as a travel agency or guide, nor would need constant updating going forward, such as the lists for Aeromar, British Midland International, Cyprus Airways (1947–2015), Mexicana de Aviacion, Pacific Airlines, Transaero, or Virgin America just to name a few. This would be in addition to the two off the top of my head that I recognized already being deleted, being the lists for Wow Air and Eastern Air Lines. Going to a website or aggregator as suggested in the proposal does not apply to them and an equivalent for their information does not exist. ChainChomp2 (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDB continues to apply to the lists of defunct airlines. Sunnya343 (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete most~~ Procedural keep Any article that is a simple listing of destinations at one point in time fails WP:NOTTIMETABLE, but I'm convinced properly sourced articles which include lists of historical destinations are encyclopaedic and can be kept, as the information demonstrates current and historical transport links between places, especially during the turboprop and early jet age. Historical encyclopaedias included current travel destinations from ports, for instance. The articles that can be kept include the British Airways list. Not entirely sure about others, but most of them do fail the first part. SportingFlyer T·C 10:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting this to be a clear delete. It would be interesting to see what the result would be if we re-ran that 2018 RfC. The biggest problem with these is that they lack context, and I'm not sure some can be properly sourced, but as noted I don't see any problem with keeping the good articles. SportingFlyer T·C 19:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the reason is that this discussion has attracted more attention from the members of WikiProject Aviation than prior AfDs, which tended to cover minor airlines such as Flyglobespan and Avianca Costa Rica. This time, however, AfD notifications have been placed on the stand-alone lists of several major airlines.
I'm not saying that this is a bad thing; it's good to have more participation. Though I feel it's important to keep WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in mind. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC you're trying to enforce is six years old, wasn't the most well attended RfC in the world, and triggered an AN discussion where it was agreed the RfC didn't mean these articles should be bulk deleted, in part because these deletions are controversial. I've changed my !vote to a procedural keep since it's clear some of these need to be deleted, but some of these could be kept or merged, and it's also clear from this current discussion that we should probably take another look at the past consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 16:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily the case that I seek to enforce the RfC. Yes, I believe the RfC closure should be taken into account, as well as the subsequent AfDs. However, the outcome of this AfD should also rest on the argument I made at the top of this page, which is my own argument and is not identical to the closure of the RfC or the rationales of previous nominators. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuing to see a number of misunderstandings from delete !voters, that this isn't encyclopaedic information because of various bits of WP:NOT. WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't apply because there's very clear inclusion criteria. WP:NOTTRAVEL doesn't apply because no travel guide would list this information. Other delete !voters assume that the information here needs to be currently updated, which was also the basis for the RfC, but the list of airlines includes defunct airlines as well. As I've noted above, the lone problem is that most of these articles lack context per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but this is an editing problem, not a deletion problem, unless they're poorly sourced. SportingFlyer T·C 16:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTRAVEL doesn't apply because no travel guide would list this information. This statement is based on the letter rather than the spirit of the policy. An exhaustive list of cities that people can fly to on an airline as of April 2024 that also informs them when flights to a new destination will start or when service to a particular city will cease, is contrary to the spirit of NOTTRAVEL in my view. This is essentially a case of WP:NOTPRICE (Listings to be avoided include... products and services), and since the role of the companies in question is transportation, there is overlap with NOTTRAVEL. Sunnya343 (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Many of these articles have very informative and extensive lists. Some major airlines have lost their own articles already which were in combined deletions eg List of United Airlines destinations and the Lufthansa and American Airlines lists. When these were deleted there was no warning or notice on the actual pages affected.CHCBOY (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a notice found left on the WP:Airlines project talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#Discussion_at_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_United_Airlines_destinations, as well as the standard notice on the appropriate destination list pages as well as transclusion to the appropriate categories. Coastie43 (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree notice was properly given, but that AfD only ran a week, and I've often missed short but important discussions for a number of different reasons. There is a lot to keep track of on here! SportingFlyer T·C 11:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck your !vote because you already !voted "Keep" above. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These lists show hubs, focus cities, bases, and terminated destinations. Trigenibinion (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have merely stated what is contained in these lists and not addressed notability. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding important historical destinations, why are generic terminated destinations a necessity to keep?

"These lists show hubs, focus cities, bases" The main airline pages already list their respective hubs, focus cities and bases. Lifetimelucid (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm really sick of discussing this over and over and to wait for the outcome in order to continue editing these articles. I see many of the editors that express their opinions here never having edited any of these articles in the past. I have maintained many of these lists in the most up-to-date form. Do whatever you want, if these lists are deleted overnight I quit Wikipedia for good. This is not the project it used to be a decade ago, when I had the time and the energy to argue against these nominations.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jetstreamer, this may sound patronizing coming from me. While WP:EFFORT is not a valid argument for the retention of these lists, I respect the work that people have put in to creating them. I have worked on them as well; for example I reorganized the List of Kingfisher Airlines destinations into a table and added references for all the former destinations.
Some of the lists include valuable references such as copies of pages in the now-unavailable FlightGlobal archive. I am going to copy them over to the talk pages of the respective parent articles so that they are conserved, regardless of the future of the stand-alone lists. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

" if these lists are deleted overnight I quit Wikipedia for good" threatening to quit over 1 AfD? I've never seen that in all my years in AfD. Sounds like WP:EFFORT to me. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can all empathise with a colleague expressing distress at losing literal hours of hard work. Regardless of our position on the scope of the encyclopedia. Draken Bowser (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep otherwise fully agreeing with User:Jetstreamer. What does wikipedia gain by destroying this well sourced materials. Axisstroke (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all,: per the nomination. Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. TarnishedPath^talk 13:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Orientls (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Not only does it take time to keep track of every single destination an airline flies to, aside from the result of the 2018 RfC with violations in WP:NOT, it also seems unnecessary to make and keep these articles when the airline in question more than 90% of the time already lists these destinations and updates them on a regular basis. Any notable historical destination an airline may have flown to could be merged into the parent article if necessary for encyclopedic purposes. Lifetimelucid (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This "90%" statistic statement you've pulled out is entirely false, a quick internet search of the world's largest, most well-known airlines do not have databases of their destinations as comprehensive & clear as those found on Wikipedia. The maintenance required shouldn't be a factor in deleting these very valuable, useful tables. By that logic, anything that needs editing or alteration on Wikipedia should instantly be taken down. Maintaining articles is not the establishment of a newsfeed, therefore proving these tables are not in any WP:NOT violation. You yourself will not be required to maintain these articles, so the burden will not fall on you to make constant adjustements. There are those who do know which adjustments to make when & will do so effectively, thus keeping the information found on this encyclopedia accurate & up to date. You not seeing a reason to keep these tables up is not reason enough to deprive the rest of the public from seeking that information here. If it is irrelevant to you personally, simply disregard it but many find this information to be incredibly useful for a variety of reasons. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)— 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly Merge into all respective airline articles, this is good information especially relevant to the aviation industry. –Aaronw1109 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 18:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Things that may be relevant to the aviation industry (i.e. an indiscriminate catalog of flight destinations) are not necessarily compatible with Wikipedia's policies, such as WP:NOTCATALOG. Pilaz (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not indiscriminate lists though - there's crystal clear inclusion criteria. SportingFlyer T·C 15:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, a list of all currently operating and closed Walmart stores around the globe would also have clear inclusion criteria... Sunnya343 (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Many of these pages were originally created 15 or more years ago with dozens or even hundreds of different people voluntarily giving their time since then for further edits because they thought this was useful information that should be easily available to all without any barriers or people trying to make money. Not one person - hundreds of volunteers all deciding that publishing this information was free would be beneficial to others. Taking as an example the headline List of British Airways destinations page, this seems to get an average 299 page views per day. That's lots of people who choose to come to English-language Wikipedia because they think it's the best source of information that they are looking for. Corporate web sites are aimed at making money for corporations - they are not about sharing freely available, accurate and transparent information - that's part of the reason for Wikipedia to exist. The WP:NOTTIMETABLE is about distinguishing between a statement saying "trains depart at 09:17, 09:47 and every 30 minutes to place X" from saying "there are trains to station X". I do not see anything on these pages saying the departure times or even the frequency of flights between destinations - only a list of destinations. The WP:NOTTIMETABLE states clearly that saying not just a list of destinations but also a frequence is allowed - it's just the exact time of departure which is discouraged. We are not talking about a page about somebody's pet cat, we are talking about deleting pages with substantive and non-offensive content which has been put together by volunteers over many years using a wide variety of reliable sources. When information changes, those volunteers find time to update the pages as quickly and as accurately as possible. Societies in the past have chosen to burn books because they were not deemed pure enough for what some people in a society wanted. History does not favour this approach. Pmbma (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" Many of these pages were originally created 15 or more years ago with dozens or even hundreds of different people voluntarily giving their time since then for further edits because they thought this was useful information that should be easily available to all without any barriers or people trying to make money. Not one person - hundreds of volunteers all deciding that publishing this information was free would be beneficial to others." WP:EFFORT isn't a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP~~ This isn't the establishment of a newsfeed. Information is never a constant, there is new information about anything & everything everyday. The fact that alterations must be made to keep these pages up to date & accurate does not mean their deletion should come to fruition. By that token, the grand majority of the information found on all airline pages should be removed. New hubs constantly open, current hubs constantly close, alterations must be made to keep that information up to date as well, but that information shouldn't also be nominated for deletion. Same thing with the fleets, new types are introduced constantly, & retired just as constantly. That is no reason to remove the fleet articles either. This information is not in violation of any Wikipedia guidelines whatsoever & there is no reason in the slightest to take this down. If this information is irrelevent to someone, let those people disregard it, but it remains incredibly useful to many, for whatever reasons they may employ this, & Wikipedia is the sole place on the internet with databases as clear, concise & comprehensive as they currently appear. Should these articles be needlessly deleted, it would lead to the essential extinction of this information, as airlines themselves don't even post this kind of information because they know Wikipedia already has it up in very clear & easy to understand manners. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) — 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Whilst you can make comments, you cannot vote more than once. I've struck your vote. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Airline articles where relevant, to find a balance between being discriminate and still including valuable info. FortunateSons (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fully agree with all previous 'keep' justifications. I outright don't think we should be deleting ANY information on ANY website on a scale such as this. FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or otherwise Merge I agree with others to just "keep" the pages, otherwise if it's deleted, I think it's better to say we will "merge" to the main airline article or something. Drcarrot.phd (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - curious to say, if this pages will gonna be deleted soon, I say let's add or include the following lists: List of Singapore Airlines destinations, List of AirAsia Group destinations, and other destinations that haven't mentioned since majority of the pages nominated to be deletion or something
Drcarrot.phd (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ There is no reason at all to take all this incredibly valuable information off this encyclopedia, which is where this information should always be kept safe, never at risk. Maintenance is necessary for the grand majority of articles at Wikipedia, but they don't signify the establishment of an official newsfeed. Information needs to be altered at times in order for it to remain accurate & as up to date as possible. Maintenance alone should not be a factor to consider when arguing an article should be taken down. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a place where information can easily be brought up & researched thouroughly, which is exactly what some do with the information of airline destinations. If information can't be found on an encyclopedia, where then? Most airlines don't even have this information as clear & concise listed on their own websites because they know this is information worthy of being in an encyclopedia, & that Wikipedia is the perfect place for that. If this information is taken down needlessly here, it will indefinitely become extinct on the internet as there are no other websites that have as comprehensive of guides to airline destinations as Wikipedia does. This information must be kept alive here, it's its only home. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC) — 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hi @2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A, There are already Wiki alternatives as as Wikia, where the deleted Airline destination lists, as well as current ones can be trans-wiki to their own dedicated Wiki. A number of fan communities has started their own wikis, which is a good host for Airline destination fans to maintain their lists, and can also be expanded on by their exact date, the aircraft type and so on. Typically information that may likely fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY on Wikipedia would be available to be posted on a dedicated Airline destinations Wiki(a) with dedicated administrators if they wish to start such a site. Coastie43 (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting more than once is unproductive, please stop doing it. Q ^{T C} 18:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per RFC decision and precedent of the other 260 lists so deleted. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per justifications which had already been listed above. S5A-0043^Talk 13:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ah shit, here we go again. We just had a large deletion discussion over airport destination and now it's airline destination? Many suggest to move the content to Wikia (or better yet, Wikidata) yet nobody has pointed exactly which website in Wikia caters to this need and nobody has said they're willing to put in the effort in assisting with the migration. If deleted before a Wikia site is set up, these contents are not readily available to be migrated off Wikipedia to Wikia. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTCATALOG and the global consensus reached at the 2018 RFC cited in the nom. Frank Anchor 17:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we already reached a common consensus before. Plus the information is placed from good reliable sources and there is no harm in providing it. Plus it provides a uniform for anyone who wants to find out if an airline flies to it or not etc compared to other sources. Naren.Ayinala (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the RFC and policy seem quite clear on this, and I haven't seen any policy based arguments for keeping. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons stated above or Merge into the main airline article. UltraBlazer (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the 2018 RFC and the more recent RFC on such lists for airports . These lists fail NOTCATALOG, if not other parts of NOT. Notable destinations like hub cities or major ports should be documented as prose using what secondary or non primary sources say about such. External links to an airlines website can be added to the airline article to give a reader a way to look at the airlines' service map. Many of the keep votes are begging USEFUL or EFFORT, which are not valid reasons to keep. Masem (t) 19:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Excuse my 'stalking' of editors' contribution histories. By my count, 13 of the 17 people who have !voted Keep/Merge so far edit considerably in the aviation space, compared to 3 of the 16 people who have !voted Delete.
Don't get me wrong; the members of WikiProject Aviation are key stakeholders here. However, when people within a particular community on this site generally have one opinion, and those outside that community generally have another, we have to take WP:LOCALCONSENSUS into account. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnya343, I'm not sure what exact point you are trying to make. A closer takes all opinions, especially from experienced editors, into account. Opinions are not disregarded because the editor specializes in editing in a certain subject area, a closure is based on arguments put forth, relevant policy and sourcing. Closers don't do research into editors' background to find out where they choose to edit and I don't think spending your time doing this is helpful in coming to a discussion consensus which is the goal here. This is not a battleground where one side wins and another loses, we try to assess what outcome, among editors as a group, is best in line with Wikipedia's policies and their own preferences. I close many AFDs with results I don't agree with but the consensus is the consensus which we all need to live with. It could be that these articles are deleted or not. Perhaps such a large bundled nomination was not the best approach (it often isn't), but the discussion is what it is and as long as it is open, it continues to evolve. All I'm certain of is that I thought this discussion would be a SNOW close and clearly that outcome is not in line with the consensus any longer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz and Lenticel, my comment was inspired by what the closer of this 2018 deletion review said: By a wide margin, the AfD close is overturned. Even after identifying a few users who edit mostly in the airline space and discounting their arguments as biased, there's an strong consensus here to overturn.

I'm not saying that as an excuse, though. I apologize for reviewing people's contribution histories, that was not right to do and I went overboard. And you're definitely correct, it's the arguments that matter at the end of the day, not who is making them. I will strike my comment and a related one above. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) I just realized that it might seem like I was calling out the closer of that deletion review; that was not my intention. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add, however, that I disagree with the view that bundling all of these lists into one nomination was a bad idea. This is the 25th AfD on lists of airline destinations. One prior discussion bundled 82 lists, another 120 lists. I don't know how many more times we want to talk about this topic, especially since I believe there is no fundamental difference between any of the lists. Another editor put it more bluntly in the July 2023 AfD, and I have to say that I concur: It’s time to solve the problem in one go and stop pretending there’s anything worth keeping in this category. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a biased and one sided view you present, you would do better to keep your distance to the discussion. First you start this proposal with a flawed assessment then you add zero arguments. I am changing my vote to Strong Keep based on the encyclopedic nature of the material. Axisstroke (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean no disrespect to aviation enthusiasts. I myself spend most of my time on this site editing articles about airports. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sunnya343 can you just let the AfD run its course? What's with all the stalking and striking down of votes? --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A number of the !votes where posted more than once, thus a number of duplicate !votes were struck out by a number of editors. The editors concerned were notified on this talk page or own their own talk pages by the editors that have struck the duplicate !votes. Coastie43 (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the RfC. As for those with issues on the effort was wasted in the creation of these lists. There is an airlines' Fandom (formerly Wikia). It can be transwiki'ed there unless there were attribution issues that I did not take into account. Other more detailed articles like those for Pokemons were transwikied to these sites before. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article gives context to British Airways main article, is referenced and unlike comments that this fandom, it is does not have this flight started here and runs at this time, which would be fandom. WP:NOT says Wikipedia does not require every piece of information, data or opinion that exists. This page does not have that (that would be a complete timetable), and when in context with the main article, which is well over the SPLIT level, shows the breadth of BA's range and size.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into the main airline article. SiniyaEdita (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The RfC was greatly flawed & should never have been binding. The consensus was only reached due to the fact that many believed these list would establish Wikipedia as a newsfeed, which is entirely untrue. If it were true, over half of the content found on Wikipedia entirely would need to be removed as much of that information also requires heavy maintenance & constant alterations. If today, Puerto Rico became the 51st state, the country's Wikipedia page would need to be altered to become more accurate & up to date, but according to very weak logic, this would transfrom Wikipedia from an encyclopedia to a news source, so therefore the country's page should be taken down entirely, as it must also be changed everytime a new president takes office as well. The 2018 RfC was incredibly self contradictory & entirely counterintuitive. It renders the grand majority of information on this encyclopedia as news & not as simple information & therefore all that information should also be erased, but doing so would be incredibly foolish. The removing of all this useful information would be incredibly hypocritical, as where else are we supposed to seek information but from an ENCYCLOPEDIA? 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Per RfC. It has been extensively covered how these pages violate numerous ideals of Wikipedia whereas most of the Keep votes center around the idea that all pages should be kept since somebody at some point put some effort into them, which taken to the logical extreme means no page should ever be deleted which is counter-intuitive to the intentions of Wikipedia. Q ^{T C} 18:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Thank you for your bold AfD. Articles like these are always out of date and better served by the website which is maintained by the companies they serve. The RfC and WP:NOT clearly apply. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per reasons above. RPC7778 (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2 previous votes are delete. You have presented zero arguments for keep. LibStar (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not referring to the 2 previous votes above my statement, obviously. RPC7778 (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, it is not at all apparent what you might be referrning to. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do I really have to specify which user's reason I support, though? I mean, some users have already made statements above that are very similar to mine. I'm unsure why I'm the only one getting called out. ~~RPC7778 (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)~~ RPC7778 (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think it's perfectly all right to refer to "the entirety" of arguments stated by either side of the argument. It is up to the closer to interpret what that means. Draken Bowser (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't see why we'd make this process so complicated that we can't accept a statement which basically says "I think people above have presented good arguments for [preferred outcome]". In policy interpretation, understanding what positions editors agree with is a strong indicator of Wikipedian consensus. /Julle (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and expand to include more information, such as former destinations, destinations served by each airports, and so on and so forth. These are important and valuable information to know the development of each carrier's network in history, and for some airlines such information reveals ups and downs in economic ties and international relations. Undelete those lists which have been deleted. 59.152.195.28 (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the development of each carrier's network in history, [...] ups and downs in economic ties and international relations. A list of data does not communicate any of this information. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - a properly sourced list of current and formerly served destinations is an integral part of a complete airline article.2001:A61:128E:F01:3931:7A23:6FCC:8DC0 (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)— 2001:A61:128E:F01:3931:7A23:6FCC:8DC0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep all - there is no real reason to delete the lists en massee; they are very useful for all airline articles. The lists are too long and detailed to be included in the parent airline pages, so going ahead with this is going to basically waste all the time and effort of thousands of editors in compliling and updating them. There is a lot of encyclopedic value in these, especially considering that exhaustive, sourced lists for many of these airlines are non-existent. I doubt most of those who claim they're not up to date have been through even a few, or are able to really know they're not up to date. By this logic most articles on here should be deleted The solution for this issue is not to delete en masse, but to update them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyvagaba (talk • contribs) 21:57, April 1, 2024 (UTC)
WP:EFFORT and WP:ITSUSEFUL are not reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - On the British Airways destinations talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_British_Airways_destinations. There is 3 reviews of deletion of the page in 2006, 2007 and 2015. The results were to Keep the page each time. So it's interesting to see the history of this regular process which seems to repeat again.CHCBOY (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appropriate encyclopedic content in the case of the larger airlines. It is possible that some of the smaller ones should be deleted, but they should be nominated individually. To the extent that a 6 year old RFC formed a consensus of some sort, consensus can change. Stifle (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems this mass-nomination of the remaining Airline lists is increasingly likely going to go the same way as the previous mass nominations and likely end in No Consensus, due to the varying quality of the pages. As the previous RFC quoted, it was recommended they should be nominated individually (i.e depending on the quality of the list) rather than en-masse. As Stifle said, as some of the smaller carriers / lower quality lists may potentially be nominated again individually in the future under separate nominations as they may be 'simple' lists that may fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY and may primary rely heavily on one or two primary sources (i.e heavily dependent on WP:PRIMARY sources from the company website and/or related aviation blog (with little/no secondary sources), in addition to possibly failing WP:CORP) but at the same time there are also a number of well sourced lists that also use secondary sources as well. Coastie43 (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before starting this AfD I had reviewed the past discussions, and I had noted this comment from Jayron32 here, which summarizes well the counterargument to your point about referencing: Delete per WP:IINFO. The issue is not whether there may be references, the issue is that this is an indiscriminate and ephemeral and trivial. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But everything in that comment is incorrect. There is clear and discriminate criteria, the fact defunct airlines have potentially notable articles and that we track historical destinations means this isn't ephemeral, and trivial generally means lists of isolated information, which these are not. SportingFlyer T·C 17:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ephemeral refers to the listing of current destinations, which change regularly, i.e. the list from today is different from the one in June 2023 or March 2014, as airlines continue to add and discontinue service to various cities. Regarding trivia, I think this is an accurate description of this information, for example the fact that Delta currently flies to 16 cities in Florida (and the names of each are provided) or that Avelo Airlines flew to Ogden from 4 May 2021 to 26 June 2022. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Jetstreamer's arguments above and think by and large that these lists are encyclopedic entries when well-sourced and maintained. Particularly for larger airlines, information about past destinations and route development is covered in detail by reliable sources giving plenty of material for expansion. I might agree with merging some of this information into main airline article in the case of smaller airlines but a mass deletion is absurd. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:22, 2 April 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. Sandstein 17:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni Students Council[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Sources are Google Maps and an insignificant press release, Google hardly finds anything on this organization. Number of members is unsourced. Icodense (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.Sk1728 (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination does not meet WP:GNG and does not have adequate in depth coverage.Tame Rhino (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. This is a youth organization of less than 4,000 members. Zero evidence of passing WP:SIGCOV. 16:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

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. Sandstein 17:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auslogics BoostSpeed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:NSOFT or WP:NPRODUCT. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and as marginally WP:SPAM. There are little more than press releases and industry media as unreliable sources. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Previous instances were deleted at AfD before the present instance was created (via AfC) in 2012. The given sources appear to have been announcement-based, mostly now gone. In the present article, there is a mix of content about the company (insufficient for WP:NCORP), this product's features, and concerns about this type of product; none of these nor anything found in searches provides evidence that the previous AfD decisions should be set aside. AllyD (talk) 14:05, 1 April 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. Sandstein 17:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auslogics Disk Defrag[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:NSOFT and has been deleted 5 times in the past for not meeting notability or being an advertisement. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and as marginally WP:SPAM. There are little more than a few "best of" lists as references. That fails WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 30 March 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. Sandstein 17:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political violence in the United States during the Cold War[edit]

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

Entire article is a mish-mash of WP:SYNTHESIS, seeking to bring disparate events under the Cold War umbrella. See for example many entries at the horrendously bloated infobox such as Wounded Knee Occupation, what does the pre-existing dispute betwen the federal government and native Americans have to do with the Cold War? Then you have the Stonewall riots at "Events and incidents", they are nothing to do with the Cold War either. These aren't isolated examples, there are many, many incidents and groups listed that have have nothing to do with the Cold War. While it's possible a proper article about the subject could be written this definitely isn't it, so per WP:TNT this article shouldn't be allowed to remain. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'd be more likely to keep it if it had some sort of sourcing that discussed this point. Some unsourced paragraphs, then a wall of links to other articles and an infobox that looks like everyone was against the government at the same time, all at once. Weird SYNTH here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
then source them yourself (Personal attack removed) NoahMusic2009 (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not interested in this topic. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Cold War was decades long, many of these events were unrelated to the international relations issue. If the creator wants to compile these as those related to the Civil Rights Movement or those related to the Vietnam War in other related articles that may be better. Reywas92^Talk 17:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; very odd WP:SYNTH going on here. Many of these events have nothing to do with the Cold War and the sources don't appear to connect the topics in this manner. Left guide (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says "during the Cold War" not "relating to the Cold War." Many events during this period can be traced back to the political climate of the time. NoahMusic2009 (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Political violence in the United States (1947-89)" valid? Similar to the article about Turkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill3602 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename: I would also support changing it's name to Political violence in the United States (1947–1989). Charles Essie (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there reliable sources that specifically delineate 1947–1989 as a distinctive era in the history of political violence in the U.S.? If not, then moving the page simply leaves one form of WP:SYNTH and enters another, and the best-case scenario I could see for preserving this material would be to merge it into a related article with a broader scope. Left guide (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political violence in the United States redirects to List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States. While not everything there is political violence, since this article is just (also) a bullet-pointed list of events, I don't see the purpose of keeping it when it now just duplicates that page. Reywas92^Talk 16:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nomination, this is a hot mess of WP:SYNTH. TarnishedPath^talk 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep and improve - I think it could be turned into a good article. It is currently poorly referenced, but the era + place + political violence combination is a perfectly valid article topic, and Cold War era in the USA was a time and place where a lot of political violence was happening. Irtapil (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I feel that if we use the information (that was properly sourced) in the links, we can make a pretty compelling article about the political violence during the time period. Danimal5407 (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a good article on this topic then this needs WP:TNT at the very least because this is unremitting WP:SYNTH. TarnishedPath^talk 07:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Beyond SYNTH, this is a poorly-sourced essay attached to a random list of protests from 1945 onwards. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the WP:SYNTH aspects, the only possible justification for this is satisfying WP:NLIST and there is simply no sourcing that satisfies this group as a class by the time period. This clearly fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Arguments that this is useful or can be improved can only be justified on the basis of reliable sourcing *with which it could* be improved. With all respect, in the absence of reliable sourcing about the *class* those arguments carry no weight. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:13, 2 April 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 14:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Plantec[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Insufficient RSs to establish notability. Searches revealed nothing better. Has published a couple of books and is namechecked in other sources. Not clear where notability lies - probably as an author. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prior nominator for the same reasons I described in the prior nomination. To the closer, also consider the delete vote from User:WomenArtistUpdates from the previous nom. BrigadierG (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree the notability in theory must come from his work as an author, and he seems to have previously written a successful book but the sources here aren't really about him, and so don't establish his notability. Editing84 (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Comics and animation, Computing, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see that what has been added to article since it was first nominated has brought it up to GNG. Though the wedding announcement was interesting! --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the sources already in the article and those added since the previous soft delete, WP:NAUTHOR is clearly met, based on the coverage of his work and WP:GNG is met based on his pioneering work in digital human interfaces. Sources include:
- "Culled of Personality" from The Aspen Times, an in-depth review of Plantec's work and his book Virtual Humans
- "Build a Virtual Buddy" from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, an in-depth multiple-page article about Plantec and his book Virtual Humans
- "Diving into Peter Plantec's brave new world of virtual humans", from On the Horizon, a more scholarly in-depth look at Plantec and his book Virtual Humans

This is exactly the kind of sourcing that was missing from the article and the second and third sources were added to the previous versions. They are all in-depth studies of Plantec and his work in reliable and verifiable sources. My "apologies" for including the wedding announcement that was the only thing that WomenArtistUpdates noticed in the expanded article, which had been included for the purposes of documenting his background and education. To the closing admin, please note that none of the above Delete votes address any of these sources, let alone acknowledge their existence. Alansohn (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with WomenArtistUpdates. It looks like the sources added since this was last deleted, including the two of the three mentioned right above that weren't in the article when it was previously deleted, are all from 2004-2005 so they do not show that this author's 2004 book had any lasting impact. This lack of references outside this brief time frame -- other than things like a wedding announcement!? -- show that this person is not regarded as an important figure, nor have they originated a significant new concept, nor have they created a significant or well-known work, nor has their work become a significant monument or won significant critical attention, etc. So, this fails WP:AUTHOR completely. Elspea756 (talk) 01:12, 27 March 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 14:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry Finzer[edit]

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

Despite a whopping 77 sources, probably still not GNG notable. I can't find a single reliable secondary source independent of the subject covering her in detail. BrigadierG (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Spirituality, United States of America, and Arizona. BrigadierG (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not sure the multiple Zone awards count for notability. The Rochester club award surely isn't. I don't see coverage beyond confirmation of various performances in my searches. What's used is largely red or yellow links per Source Highlighter. PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet criterion WP:GNG.--Bexaendos (talk) 18:20, 28 March 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. ✗plicit 12:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric and the Dread Gazebo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I've added two refs, but I am afraid this fails WP:GNG. It's a niche meme / anecdote that did not get any WP:SIGCOV. The best source I could find is a PhD thesis that discusses this for about two pages or so; another academic book mentions this in passing and calls it "legendary". There are also WP:OR concerns, such as our article's stress that this was popularized by one "Richard Aronson", sourced to his old post where he focuses on his copyrights for this story - I failed to find any independent source which credits him with "popularizing" this. That said, we are effectively retelling this entire (very short) story, which does raise some copyvio concerns. And then there is the "in popular culture" section which forms half of our article and is pure OR (unreferenced). Sigh. I do find this meme (or anecdote) funny and I've heard it before today, but I am afraid it is not notable. I struggle to suggest where to merge and redirect it. The only page that links to this trivia is Gazebo, where maybe this could be summarized in a few sentences? PS. Last AfD few years ago had a lenghty list of sources about a play called Hannah and the Dread Gazebo, which may be notable, but I am not seeing any evidence that that play was inspired by this anecdote (this review suggests there may be a connection, but is vague). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Popular culture. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: [29] is reliable, yes (Seems to have a real staff etc.)? There are also books that cover this. I've just requested one from my local library ("The role-playing society: essays on the cultural influence of RPGs") which apparently has some coverage. @Piotrus: could you point me to the Thesis, is it [30]?? Note: I was notified of this AfD indirectly by another editor. Hobit (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit: The PhD thesis is Anything can be attempted: Tabletop role-playing games as learning and pedagogy by Timothy Woods. /Julle (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://knowyourmeme.com/ is not reliable. Tagged in red by User:Headbomb/unreliable... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could someone explain the copyright concerns to me? Storylines aren't covered, only unique expressions of said story – retellings of stories are allowed under US copyright law. But we're still talking about a work in detail rather than creating a new work of art with the same characters (Eric, the gazebo), so I don't understand how the characters could be the issue any more here than in any other description. /Julle (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Julle Copyvio is not a strong converns of mine here. The issue is that we paraphrase this very short story in about as many words as the original. But given how short it is, it may be fine due to fair use or such. The bigger issue is that this story is not very well covered by other sources (notability). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my humble opinion, none of this discussion or the original deletion discussion has really demonstrated what makes the story notable. That an anecdote is told and retold across sources does not amount to notability if there is not any cited coverage about the context, reception or influence of that story. Of the three sources, Aaronson is a primary source and purported origin of the story, Byers briefly retells the story without analysis (calling it "legendary" is not really reception) as a point of trivia about a reference in Munchkin, and the Woods source is a thesis, which is fair for inclusion but not particularly strong evidence for notability as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which retells the story to open a discussion about the "inner workings" of play experiences and play-based learning, which to be fair is valid and good commentary. If this is the WP:THREE sources we're leaning on for notability, it's not a good start, and I hope more reliable sources with sustained commentary on the story can be found, perhaps averting to a WP:NEXIST situation. On the point about the play, the previous deletion discussion suggested it may very well be notable. But that's because it had sources discussing it. As with WP:TRIVIA I would really caution the idea that something is notable because a bunch of loosely connected creative works have referenced or hinted at it in the past, because that in itself does not reliably evidence anything of substance about the nature of the thing itself, although does provide some evidence of legacy. On the copyright issue, yes, if it's genuinely copyrighted, quoting or reproducing the story would be a WP:COPYVIO, but paraphrasing would not be - that's fair use. Happy to re-evaluate this one if more sources are found. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Don't think this is particularly strong, but the below text found reinforces a general pattern of retelling and commentary on the story, enough to substantiate notability, paired with the likely WP:NEXIST situation it is enough. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found one more source, Dangerous Games, p. 11-12, which discusses the topic under the term "the gazebo story" and goes in the same direction as Wood's PhD thesis ("The gazebo anecdote is significant because...".) So while those sources do not provide a very large amount of commentary, I would say it is enough to just so establish notability. Daranios (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per source found by Daranios. BOZ (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🍪 CookieMonster 12:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep we now have multiple, reliable, independent sources and so our inclusion guideline is met. Hobit (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we have enough indications that this is a story which has been spread throughout various places, a cultural phenomenon which is helpful if we can explain, and enough sources to be able to keep it. /Julle (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - several independent reliable sources. WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no objection to merging this into some sort of a bigger article on role playing game memes and culture. That is, this clears the bar per the above... but really, is it better served as part of a larger narrative. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 30 March 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. ✗plicit 14:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian e-Learning University[edit]

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

Fails under certain notability guidelines: WP:SIGCOV, GNG, and more 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google Books actually turns up a lot of results for this university; for example, page 77 of this book satisfies all of the notability requirements (independent, reliable, secondary, direct in-depth significant coverage). I might try to dig up more sources later if I have the time and inclination to do so. Left guide (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup but would be very unusual for a national university to be non-notable. Have done some searching in Arabic [الجامعة المصرية للتعلم الإلكترونى الأهلية] and can see quite a few sources. AusLondonder (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 26 March 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 Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters#Vaggie. Content can be merged from the history if desired. A 1:1 merger would overwhelm the target article, though. Sandstein 16:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vaggie[edit]

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

This article relies mostly about her relationship to Charlie Morningstar. But, despite that, it seems like this [31] is the only good source. BEFORE, most of the sources were from the film reviews and Vaggie was just a passing mention. Fails WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Owen× ☎ 10:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to character list/draftify per reasons for nom. 91.219.238.98 (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I saw this one coming, no in depth coverage or even a massive fan following to warrant inclusion. We aren't Fandom. ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 01:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was honestly surprised when I saw 4 individual articles for Hazbin Hotel characters, as typically Wikipedia is pretty strict on these kinds of things. I think Alastor and Charlie are notable enough, but Angel Dust and Vaggie don't feel as fitting for individual articles. XanderK09 (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters. Unless we find more independent sources talking about Vaggie specifically and not ones depending on her relationship with Charlie, Vaggie doesn't deserve an article. --Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lionel Cristiano^? 14:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but why? Historyday01 (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters per WP:TOOSOON. In the future the continued popularity of Hazbin Hotel and this character could warrant an article, but the information should be put somewhere rather than the history being purged as a full delete would do. Original Alastorian (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep Whatever happened to WP:Alternatives to deletion? I believe the multiple sources together provide enough significant coverage to establish WP:Notability. I agree that most coverage is about the relationship to Charlie Morningstar, i.e. applies equally to both characters. I don't see a problem in having some of the same coverage in two places on Wikipedia, based on WP:NOTPAPER. But if that's seen as an issue, and if one wants to discount sources like ScreenRant with regard to notability, deletion still goes against the spirit of WP:AtD, as it e.g. would remove the coverage by what also the nominator sees as a good source from Wikipedia alltogether, because what we have here is not present anywhere else yet (I think). Therefore the reception information with regard to the relationship should be merged to Charlie Morningstar and other relevant information to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters#Vaggie. Daranios (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters#Vaggie, or keep, per Daranios. Eve Would Never (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. As such I also vote to merge to the page link that Eve Would Never suggested, or to Keep. To say that this page should be deleted is incorrect.. Those who want to delete this page are either citing weak or no arguments, or are not considering any alternatives to deletion. Like with the Charlie Morningstar AfD (which is also faulty by the way), the OP just slapped on a notability tag on the article and nominated it for deletion, but did not seem to do the work prior to the nomination which could have addressed these concern. I hope that this AfD is withdrawn like the Charlie Morningstar AfD. The work that users put into building this page should be respected.Historyday01 (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is, unlike Charlie's article whose sources make her the subject and analyze her character traits, all of the sources in Vaggie's article mostly talk about her in regards to her relationship with Charlie. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters: As a valid WP:ATD. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~I can agree with that as well, but I would also believe it can be kept, as the nom's arguments are invalid. As such I vote merge as well, but also keep per the other arguments on here.~~ 71.179.137.86 (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters#Vaggie, per the article being WP:TOOSOON and the preferable vote for an WP:ATD. Spinixster (trout me!) 13:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with list of hazbin/helluva characters, i don't think vaggie particularly needs a seperate article XanderK09 (talk) 19:28, 1 April 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, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhailo Deyak[edit]

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

I couldn't find reliable sources to establish notability, mainly promotional results. Looks like he could be notable, if information is verified, but no evidence of it. Unref blp. Boleyn (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Ukraine. Owen× ☎ 10:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The person does not appear to be notable from reading the article. I can't find any refs in the article either and an unsourced BLP is not something we want. In the meantime, I'll remove anything that looks contentious or promotional to me. QwertyForest (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BEFORE does not bring up any RS references to show notability. He is listed on a few gallery sites and some pay-to-play sites. The artist has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WP:TOOSOON. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:37, 28 March 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. Withdrawn by nominator, no other delete !votes. (non-admin closure) ~ A412 ^talk! 19:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Torrent (Elden Ring)[edit]

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

When writing a character article it's important to illustrate what sets the character apart from its base work, and why it's necessary to have a stand-alone article to fully understand it.

Torrent in this case is more of a game mechanic, and even in the sources cited there isn't an indication of importance beyond the game itself. While there is some slight design commentary, the vast majority pertains to Elden Ring itself as a gameplay element to explore the title. It's not a discussion of the horse's character or how players or reviewers reacted to it, but in sources like VG247's there the excitement of riding a horse in a game like this.

Couple it with a dev section that's essentially trivia, and in-universe details to bulk up the "Features" section (why is the exact health regen a thing?) and...yeah. At best, what reception isn't in the Elden Ring article would be better suited there. Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Am article creator) It appears the nominator has ignored the significant coverage from Kotaku, PC Gamer, Polygon and VG247 as well as TheGamer, amongst other sites, as disliking the subject apparently comes first. Torrent is unquestionably notable, and is a fully fledged character of the game - while he doesn't talk, it's hinted Torrent's probably of human-level intelligence and directly chose the main character rather than the other way around, not that it matters as far as GNG is concerned. There isn't much more to say besides that it seems to solely be motivated by not liking the article and calling it "trivia" without merit or basis in fact, which is obviously no basis for anything. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is "ignoring all this SIGCOV". Let's do a source analysis.

The Gamer is giving an exposition dump and while fine for citing in the context of the body for secondary sourcing, is not reception. It's also the sort of sourcing you've argued against in the past.
PCGamer, Polygon, and VG247 are discussing it in the context of a game mechanic. Outside of the scope of Elden Ring, this is meaningless, unless you somehow feel "turning radius" is character reception. All of this relates to Elden Ring's reception, even in light of other FromSoftware games. As a stand alone character, there is no discussion.
Kotaku's is the one case discussing it in the context of design. And even then, it veers into gameplay commentary in the scope of Elden Ring.

So yes, the sources were read and examined prior to this. One has to consider the scope and text in a source and what it's applying to. The fact it's a horse doesn't change notability standards: compare it to Weighted Companion Cube, a subject that is, literally, an inanimate cube, yet has discussion and SIGCOV actually discussing it in the context of being a fictional character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather rich that you are making this argument, while also having directly contributed to articles such as Wooper, as well as proposing a merge for Magikarp and Gyarados, which are also about characters with no personality that are judged solely for their gameplay and appearance, yet seemingly had no qualms about them, nor most other Pokemon articles. To call this contradictory is putting it lightly. If what you argue is truly policy it would seemingly disqualify every Pokemon article save for the ones with plot relevance like Pikachu or Mewtwo. We know it's not true, though, because Pokemon like Snorlax did get kept by community consensus. I don't see Snorlax playing a pivotal role in the story of the games besides being a giant roadblock. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure many Pokemon are still judged for their personality, even Snorlax. I'm not sure why you chose that particular tangent outside of a weird WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that doesn't even remotely apply to this subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear I'm not arguing OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, my point is that gameplay mechanics are a perfectly valid way for a character to be notable, and one that's been backed up by consensus. This whole "gameplay doesn't count!" thing appears to be a personal invention with no basis in policy. INDISCRIMINATE says it should demonstrate significance, and gameplay can be significant, as in this case. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See, here's the problem: gameplay can be adequate to show notability, but there's a good reason why gameplay articles are very rare. Typically, gameplay articles succeed because of cultural impact or because they cover a lot of ground that can't be easily summarized without article bloat. or because they apply to enough articles that it wouldn't make sense to merge it into a parent article. Torrent's reception seems to amount to "most people find him useful for navigating the world of Elden Ring, though some feel that he doesn't change much in terms of quality of life." I would not argue that there's any claim that gameplay doesn't count, I believe the argument being made is that the discussion of gameplay is pretty insufficient compared to other articles about gameplay. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of those articles you mentioned are, as Kung Fu Man noted, judged on their personality, appearance, gameplay significance, and more. Anyway, to stay on topic, I'll check the sources myself.

[32] - This has very little to say about Torrent as a horse, almost exclusively being based on its mechanical value. Now, that kind of coverage is not without its value, but if it's more premised on a game mechanic and game utility than anything else, I would contend that it needs a lot to give it significance.

[33] - This seems to be a... pretty minor article about the jankiness/weirdness of the goatish hooves? This is something I would compare to, say, an article about Blastoise being changed to have Hydro Pump's animation changed so the water comes out of his shell gun things. Not worthless, but certainly not something I'd use as an article's foundation.

[34] - Again, this is purely mechanical, not really getting to the heart of Torrent's character in any way.

The two mod sources - This feels a little weak; if the articles were about Torrent modding, maybe, but they're just a smaller part of a bigger subject.

The rest seem to be about concept and creation info (correct me if I'm wrong).

If I may recommend it, you might be able to find better sourcing by using this, frankly, crude method of search I devised: User:Cukie Gherkin/Source searching. I find that it's a little more time consuming, but it tends to get deeper (and is much more valuable now that Google search algorithm is so shite). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lionel Cristiano^? 14:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for Deletion is not a vote. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple reliable, independent sources give significant coverage to the character, meeting WP:GNG, such as [35] [36] [37] [38]. (I don't see the problem with the sources giving significant coverage to the character in the context of Elden Ring gameplay — at least, I don't see any objections in the GNG to that. SIGCOV is SIGCOV, GNG is GNG). The article also has enough content to be standalone. Skyshiftertalk 02:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was already discussed, and it appeared that the sources had been examined (See above). GreenishPickle! (🔔) 05:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it should be noted that people do not have to agree with the nom's conclusion about the sources. In this case she did not concur with the assertion they do not pass GNG criteria and were insufficient for an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually commented only because the user probably didn't know the sources they brought here up were already provided above, not to disagree with their vote. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 06:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, just be mindful of your wording, as that's how I understood it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know the sources were already provided; that's why I commented about the sources giving coverage "in the context of Elden Ring gameplay", because I saw this was an objection to the sources (which I disagree with). Skyshiftertalk 09:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the context more accurately is that the argument is that the gameplay element within Elden Ring is the sole aspect of discussion. To put it better, the citations discuss how using a horse in that game affected exploration of it compared to previous FromSoftware titles, the character of Torrent isn't the subject of those sources. However, it is the subject of this article. There's also some precedent for this sort of discussion also, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Armor (Fallout).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You stated that "the gameplay element is the sole aspect of discussion" and "the character of Torrent isn't the subject of those sources", which is demonstrably false. Here are some choice quotes: "Torrent is my best horse pal [...] I'd love him all the same." PC Gamer. "Every time “You Died” appears on my screen, I do not suffer. But should Torrent be killed, I absolutely mourn." Polygon. "...you know Torrent is always there. Eager to help." VG247. While most of the discussion is gameplay, the sources absolutely do talk about Torrent in the manner of a character, not a device. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zx come on man you know those are trivial, I mean hell you're even taking the VG247 one out of context. Come on. You've argued against this very same sort of sourcing in the past, and against sources that have said more about subjects just recently.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, without prejudice to AfD possibly later I feel this AfD has trainwrecked, but at the same time I recognize this is an important subject to the creator. Looking online at Google News has also presented the possibility that upcoming downloadable content may offer more depth to the character and actual reception.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:32, 28 March 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 Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Bean[edit]

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

The subject played a very small number of matches for a lower league semi-professional football team. The only sources appear to be databases and club histories. I'm curious to see if others think this person meets the notability criteria. JMWt (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and England. JMWt (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly Gillingham is a fully professional club, so your nomination is slightly floored there. I am curious why you didn't post a question to ChrisTheDude who is highly active on wikipedia about your concerns first instead of going straight to AfD. Govvy (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it should have been discussed with the user who created this page, having a look at the page history, it has been on Wikipedia for a fraction under 15 years. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it doesn't seem to be a hugely unreasonable AfD. He only played 3 times professionally and the article itself states No further details of his career are known, which is essentially a confession that not much was written about him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: - not that it's especially relevant to the AfD given that the whole "has played in a fully pro league" thing died a long time ago, but while the Gills may be fully pro now they (and all Third Division clubs) almost certainly weren't in the early 1950s. Articles reproduced in this book, which I own, makes it clear that many players at that level had jobs outside football at the time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Yes I know, I know that there were professional footballers in those days, but even know they were on full professional contracts and were paid, they were not paid enough and required second jobs. Govvy (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is pretty much the definition of semi-professional sports:

Semi-professional sports are sports in which athletes are not participating on a full-time basis, but still receive some payment. Semi-professionals are not amateur because they receive regular payment from their team, but generally at a considerably lower rate than a full-time professional athlete. As a result, semi-professional players frequently have (or seek) full-time employment elsewhere. JMWt (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JMWt: Actually no, he was a full professional under contract and pay and having to train full time. There is no ifs and buts about it. Having a second job was to make up the money. Football at the time, league football was all fully professional, but the pay was lousy for the lower divisions. Govvy (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to List of Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances) is a possibility. Geschichte (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances) as valid ATD. Giant Snowman 21:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG generally. The delete vote is to fight against WP:BIAS. Anwegmann (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GS as ATD. Can't see any harm in having a redir as opposed to outright deletion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as R from member. Killarnee (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Idiosincrático (talk) 23:50, 1 April 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. Nothing definitive has been found to support GNG, therefore the argument analyzing available sources, which finds nomenclature duplicity and nothing supporting GNG for the article topic, is by far the strongest. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zafar Azimov[edit]

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

Not notable person according to the WP GNG and WP ANYBIO. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Tajikistan, Russia, England, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Preliminary findings suggest that the subject might meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. However, a more thorough review of the available sources is warranted to ensure all potential coverage has been adequately considered. --149.172.122.230 (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article cites two real sources: here and here. The other sources are a company bio, an article on his father, a linkedin page, and a telegram message. Meanwhile, it's full of extremely controversial claims about a living person which are either unsourced or cited to unreliable sources. I don't know Russian and can't confidently evaluate whether there's better coverage out there, but as it stands, the majority of this article needs to be swiftly deleted.— Moriwen (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Searching for this guy's name in Russian brings up a number of hits. I can't vouch for all of those, but want to err on the side of caution. I agree that there's a bunch of dubious claim in the Criticism section, but that's not an AfD issue. Cortador (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cortador May you please link some of those hits? They could just be insignifcant listings as far as anyone else knows. Mach61 12:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Search for "Яхьёевич Азимов". Many of the links aren't good sources, but as I said, I'm not able to judge most of them. The Russian article also cites a number of sources, but I'm not familiar with any of those. Cortador (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Of the 6 sources currently in the article, 1 and 3 aren't indipendent, 2 doesn't have SIGCOV of Zafar, 4 is WP:NEWSPRIMARY coverage of a meeting he had, and 5, octagon.media, is a literal Russian propaganda source that should probably be WP:BLPREMOVED . Not a vote, since I haven't run my own search yat, but notability is not indicated so far. Mach61 12:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage under his Russian name is either about an unrelated person who died in 2016, press releases, or derivative of the octagon.media report. Even if octagon.media is situationally reliable (which could be the case, but it's best to be cautious in a BLP), I'm not convinced this amounts to a WP:NBASIC pass. Mach61 13:05, 26 March 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article given the sources located (which I hope find their way into the article).

Feel free to disagree with a relisting but please do not go after the non-admin relister, assume good faith. We are very short on admins to close and relist AFD discussions and so any help we can get is appreciated. But we are also seeing fewer editors participating regularly in AFDs so you all are appreciated, too, especially when your efforts lead to an improved article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Meyer[edit]

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

Not a notable individual. Fails WP:GNG. Possible autobiography. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Canada. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a distinguished and recognized Canadian Poet. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
That doesn't appear in sourcing. Canadian poet, yes, "distinguished and recognized", unclear. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : I don't see much for him as a poet, there is a person with the same name who worked for the player's union in Major League Baseball, but I don't know if it's the same guy. The only connection I see here is a lifetime pass to the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, which is almost mentioned in passing, and is in no way notable... Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is a poet, not a footballer or an economist. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Baseball guy, not a football guy (soccer or Super bowl). Oaktree b (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article has improvement opportunities. I haven't found news sources but found him as a several award winning reputed author from Canada. Here are some of the websites I found him.

opportunities

https://www.springpulsepoetryfestival.com/winners-2019.html
https://www.nunum.ca/blog/brucemeyer#:~:text=Bruce%20Meyer%20is%20author%20or,He%20lives%20in%20Barrie%2C%20Ontario.
https://www.thewoolf.org/competitions/
https://www.montrealpoetryprize.com/2015-competition
https://www.thewoolf.org/2018/12/01/meet-the-poets-2018-poetry-competition-shortlisters/
https://www.blakejones.southshorereview.ca/news/contest-results/
https://southshorereview.ca/interviews/an-interview-with-bruce-meyer/
https://www.georgiancollege.ca/blog/newsroom/spotlight-on-prof-bruce-meyer-for-national-poetry-month/
https://edmontonpoetryfestival.com/headliners/bruce-meyer/
https://www.comares.com/media/comares/files/toc-113708.pdf
https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/meyer-bruce-1957

There are more available. Yolandagonzales (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, keep based on unreliable sources about non-notable prizes? This isn't wikipolicy. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, poetry festivals, his employer (Georgian College)'s blog, an interview and prize wins, aren't notable. I'm not seeing any of these as helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see a listing in the Canadian Encyclopedia [39], pretty much a go-to source here for obscure Canadian biographies. I don't think this person is important enough at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He published books in the 1980s and 1990s, into the early 2000s, so I had to dig to get references. Here's a book review from 2001 [40], a review from 1985 on an anthology [41], a brief one here (scroll down to the bottom) [42], and a partial discussion in the Atlantic from 2000 [43]. And briefly mentioned in a 2018 article about "good books to read" about an anthology [44]. These are the type of sources we need for published authors, not those given above. Oaktree b (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Beyond what Oaktree lists above, I found that a Spanish literature professor, Juan de Dios Torralbo Caballero, has written an entire book on Meyer, The Poetry of Bruce Meyer: The inaugural poet laureate of the city of Barrie, and that book in turn has at least two published reviews doi:10.24310/Entreculturasertci.vi7-8.11506 and hdl:10396/14118. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source eval for the newly found ones would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by the relist User:The Herald. Six comments, of which 4 are keeps, with no deletes or even a redirect. But you relist it? How is this not consensus? Please either remove your relist and step out of the discussion. Or close it now. Nfitz (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of those four comments, Oaktree's !weak keep and David's !keep are only helpful in the discussion and helps in building a consensus. The links provided by Yoland is not helpful and doesn't make the case. Xxanthippe comment is just a WP:ILIKEIT. Based on these, clear consensus is not developed and furthermore, additional discussion is needed to evaluate the new sources brought up by Oaktree and David. Hence, I relisted. If you disagree, you may close the discussion yourself but IMO, it warrants one more week of discussions and a source eval. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do the source evaluation yourself and become a participant rather than pretending to be a closer, if you're so keen to have that be part of this AfD. In particular, include all 11 of Yolanda's sources in your evaluation rather than sweeping them aside based only on insubstantial remarks by other participants. Perhaps you can also dig up a copy of the entire book about the subject and then include it in your source evaluation. Or read the reviews of the book to find what it contains, at least. They also contain some coverage of the subject, not just of the book about him, so read them anyway. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS Oh, look, here's another academic article entirely about Meyer's poetry: Resonance in Bruce Meyer Sonnets, Language in Different Contexts 2016. And another group review of work including Meyer's: ProQuest 1307870648, PN Review 1991. And another: ProQuest 218811976, "War of Words", Canadian Literature 2002. And another: ProQuest 915659603, "Equine, Bovine, Divine", Canadian Literature 2011 (the divine is one of Meyer's books). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided in David's initial comment are excellent. We don't have to do a source analysis to see the obvious. Nfitz (talk) 16:54, 30 March 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 06:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate Debate[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, the only sources providing coverage of Incubate Debate itself are local. The reliable sources are generally about the National Speech and Debate Association, with only passing mentions of Incubate Debate. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and United States of America. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Would have to agree with nom. The sources I am finding are mentions and do not pass WP:ORGCRIT or are not WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage I've found doesn't establish the organization's significance in a way that meets Wikipedia's notability requirements for organizations.Dejaqo (talk) 00:14, 2 April 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. People are free to create a redirect later, but for now it's unclear if there is a suitable redirect target. Sandstein 16:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KJCS-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Religion, and Colorado. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This probably should have been bundled with the nomination for parent station KDEO-LD. KJCS's pre-KDEO history was all-Daystar, and its current form has no separate notability from KDEO — which, when there's no notability there, is a problem. (Non-notability isn't automatically handed down like that, much as notability isn't inherited either, but it's not a good sign.) There are lists that this could be redirected to, but for the sake of consistency (given the KDEO deletion) it's probably best to jettison this entirely. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if there is a suitable list as per WCQuidditch's post. Religious related broadcasting stations are more notable when we get info the physical paperwork. After the work that's been put into it, it would be nice to preserve the history. Karl Twist (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are advocating a Redirect or Merge, you need to identify the target article in each AFD you participate in. One link, and an argument, is what is being looked for. Otherwise, it looks like this article will be Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Media in Colorado Springs, Colorado (where it is mentioned as an EWTN station). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The information in RabbitEars suggests that article is the outdated one, Slgrandson. This was once owned by a Catholic group, but it now is owned by Simchat Torah Beit Midrash and offers channels called Oorah TV, Torah TV, Vida Vision TV, and Grace TV. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:22, 26 March 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 television stations in Colorado#LPTV stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KBRO-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Most references are to the FCC website. Could merge into Dish Network. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Colorado. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. Please could you look at a suggestion I made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KPDC-LP for an alternative to deletion if it comes to that. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of television stations in Colorado#LPTV stations: it is listed there, and a redirect there would seems like a valid alternative to deletion, though at the moment no programming information is listed there (which is pretty much all that could be merged there). The Dish Network marketing the station is currently used for does not seem worthy of a merger there (and without that, a redirect there would bet too much of a surprise). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different proposed Merge target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of television stations in Colorado#LPTV stations, which, unlike Dish Network, mentions this topic. It's basically Dish's ATSC 3.0 sandbox. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:17, 26 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agafonika[edit]

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

PROD removed. Random name that fails WP:NNAME and WP:NOTDICT. No sources found outside of dictionary definitions, databases and baby name websites. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD's so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agafonika is also a river and a titular diocese, as well as a first name for a well-known actress. See these Russian articles: Agafonika Vasilyevna Miropolskaya (1909-1996) - Russian and Soviet theater actress, People's Artist of the RSFSR (1967). titular diocese of Agafonika

[[:ru:https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0 Agafonikha (tributary of the Chema) Russian Wikisource: https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%91%D0%AD/%D0%92%D0%A2/%D0%90%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0 (a listing in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia) Here's a search on Russian Wikinews: https://ru-wikinews-org.translate.goog/w/index.php?fulltext=1&search=%D0%90%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%BE%CC%81%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0&title=%D0%A1%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F:%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA&ns0=1&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp If you suspect that an article with a Russian name is not notable, you need to look at Russian-language sources, starting with the Russian Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article already has two Russian-language book references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are still no English language articles as of present. If someone can prove notability of said subjects and say they will create the articles in the near future then I may be content. I know deleting just to potentially undelete and such may increase bureaucracy but if there’s no guarantee that the articles will be written anytime soon then I’d rather not have the page floating around. And the books you speak of are dictionaries, which generally do not show notability alone. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AllTheUsernamesAreInUse There is no requirement sources be in English Mach61 06:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know. My point is that there are no English language articles as of present. The subjects listed by Eastmain may be notable but they have no articles right now. I still don’t think that the Russian sources for the name itself are enough for notability purposes. Even if the articles listed by Eastmain get created, it should probably be converted to a DAB, seeing as we need at least two people to meet WP:NNAME. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Bottom line, we need more than two opinions here or this will close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, name is not notable, pointless to create dab for articles that don't exist (couldn't that be G14'd anyways?) Mach61 07:45, 29 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian hydrogen highway partnership[edit]

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

Although I found https://newenergy.is/en/portfolio/nordic-hydrogen-partnership/ I doubt there are enough good sources for this to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Iceland. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to its current name, Nordic Hydrogen Partnership (leaving the current title as a redirect). Sources e.g. here, here, here.— Moriwen (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hynor. This article provides almost no context. gidonb (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 26 March 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!} 01:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown School[edit]

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

Previously declined prod. I could not find coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Note there are other schools in the world with the same name. LibStar (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and United Arab Emirates. LibStar (talk) 04:37, 12 March 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 04:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I've read through the article and I cannot find anything on it that indicates that it is notable. Seems run-of-the-mill. Also, your mileage may vary but this reads like an advertisement to me. I'm not entirely sure though. QwertyForest (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:17, 26 March 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 and redirect‎ to Colin Goldberg. Per source analysis and strength of arguments, consensus to delete, but a redirect would be helpful for navigation. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Techspressionism[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Techspressionism has no reliable sourcing that it is an art movement or style. The portmanteau coined by an artist, but it entirely his own invention. The references in the article point to interivews, press releases and self created website. There is no reliable sourcing. https://hamptonsarthub.com/2014/10/21/techspressionism-reflects-impact-of-japanese-aesthetics/ is a puff piece on Colin Goldberg. https://www.27east.com/arts/techspressionism-a-global-movement-with-local-roots-1933155/ refers exclusively to Goldberg's self named style. https://www.wired.com/2014/10/if-picasso-had-a-macbook-pro/ has a quote by Goldberg naming his own art. Techspressionism is part of a walled garden created by COI accounts. There is no alternative to deletion. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Technology. Owen× ☎ 23:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - please see my reasoning below. Scribe1791 (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Scribe1791 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

@WomenArtistUpdates I feel that an accurate definition of Techspressionism is that it is a community of artists.

Christiane Paul, Digital Art Curator at the Whitney Museum, stated in a discussion on Techspressionism (which I moderated):

"One thing that I like about Techspressionism is that as a term, it can transcend boundaries, and in terms of the question of whether we need to clearly delineate things, I am all for openness, and I think Techspressionism already fulfills an important function if there are artists aligning themselves with that term and finding a platform to discuss issues that are relevant to their work; that is always a function that makes a term valuable."

Link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8Glurhxyms&t=1478s Scribe1791 (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Per WP:RSP, Wired is considered a RS and I'm not sure how a quote from the artist who coined the term would invalidate that. Most of the arguments here made for Keep are completely irrelevant though. YordleSquire (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The hashtag #techspressionism is widely used on social media by artists around the world to refer to their technology-based artwork, with over 71K posts using the hashtag on Instagram as of today: https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/techspressionism. For the sake of transparency, I am the artist who coined the term, and like any term, it has an inventor. To be clear, the term was defined as neither "an art movement or style", but as an artistic approach in which technology is utilized as a means to express emotional experience. This definition was created in 2020 by a group of artists (Patrick Lichty, Steve Miller (artist), Oz Van Rosen, and myself) as well as the art historian and critic Helen A. Harrison, who is well-respected in her field. It would seem that at this point, the term became something beyond a "portmanteau" describing my work alone, although it certainly started that way. The 27 East article that you stated "refers solely to Goldberg's self-named style" is about an exhibition which I curated that was comprised of the work of more than 90 artists working with technology from over 20 countries, and thus clearly did not represent "my personal style." Moreover, to address another editor's comment in the article's revision history: "(Techspressionism) was one show, not a "movement": the activities of the community are ongoing, as evidenced by the group's monthly meetups on Zoom (Techspressionist Salons) in which artists from different countries gather to share work related to art and technology and discuss ideas. There have been 80 of these meetups since 2020, and they are archived here: https://techspressionism.com/salon/ There is also an active Techspressionists Facebook Group, to which I will post a link to this discussion, so hopefully other members of the community can weigh in on whether the term is simply a description of my own work. To state "there is no alternative to deletion" shows an unwillingness to consider any sides of this discussion other than your own. Scribe1791 (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
very well said and reasoned. seems a bit silly to dismiss this term you had originally coined and have since championed through it's growing community and reach. It evolves not only with the technology used by artists but it relevance in the art market and institutions. It that way it is like every other art style and movement that has emerged in the last few centuries. Mwoody37 (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC) — Mwoody37 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. May I? A hashtag is just a collection of letters used to signify something. It's only when the something becomes significant that the hashtag may become notable. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being only an 'occasional' editor on WP I'm not sure of how to engage in a debate here, but I will try.

1) As an artist who sees his work well described by Techspressionism as a term, I'm a bit confused as to where the deletion author comes to the conclusion that it is simply a Goldberg portmanteau. I identify my work as Techspressionist. See my work as example (https://leeday.photography).

2) As you can see from the references above in Instagram and other physical and online forums there is a substantive group of people who also identify as Techspressionist Artists.

3) Furthermore if Whitney Museum Curator of Digital Art Christiane Paul and Helen A. Harrison, Director of the Pollock-Krasner House and Study Center can debate the significance of Techspresionism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8Glurhxyms) then it would seem a worthy subject to include in Wikipedia.

Finally, if the article needs work then I would suggest this retention category WP:POTENTIAL certainly applies. poltergeister (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC) — Lday (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. The movement, while relatively new, is established, there are artists, who are considering themselves as part of it. There are exhibitions, there's a community, there are publications. One could also find it strange that the proponent of the deletion didn't engage with the editors on the talk page, but instead suggested it directly for a deletion. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer there's a !vote on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Techspressionism that should be included in the assesment. It's not in English but is accessible via google translate Star Mississippi 12:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it now has been added below. Netherzone (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Wikipedia article on Techspressionism should not be a candidate for deletion. The four articles you mention with their focus on - Colin Goldberg “ puff piece” and “self named style” do not adequately address the totality of what techspressionism is. You mention it is an art movement or style.Techspressionism is an “approach” rather than a movement or style. https://techspressionism.com/artists/. Colin Goldberg is not alone in ushering in this approach.There are a number of notable artists who are a part of this approach.https://techspressionism.com/artists/. Goldberg strives toward a model of decentralized social sculpture created by participating artists akin to the German artist, Joseph Beuys who believes that “social sculpture could potentially reshape society and politics.”

You point out articles that only speak of Colin Goldberg’s artistic practice. Take the time to do a thorough reading of the Techspressionism website. Visit the link below to see the work of other techspressionists artists such as Oz Van Rosen, Steve Miller, Patrick Lichty, and many others who join Goldberg in this approach. https://techspressionism.com/history/. Please note the number of artists listed in the index. https://techspressionism.com/artists/ Also note that techspressionism has 78.K international artists that use the hashtag #techspressionist on social media. Many of these artists meet at our monthly online salons moderated by several different artists.

The Techspressionism group advisor Helen Harrison, director of the Pollack-Kasner Museum is also an art historian, museum director, critic, artist and journalist who specializes in Modern American Art. In her interview with Colin Goldberg she discusses Techspressionism. She sees it as an “approach” that uses technology in a subjective way revealing internal feelings.See “Art in Focus: What the Heck is Techspressionism?”

Lastly, watch the interview between Christiane Paul, curator of digital Art at the Whitney Museum and Helen Harrison in a discussion focusing on Techspressionism as it relates to art historical movements of the past. https://techspressionism.com/video/roundtable/curators-in-conversation/

The Techspressionism Wikipedia article should be retained. Cynthiadidonato (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC) — Cynthiadidonato (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment and suggestion - I have noticed that some editors are repeatedly refactoring/editing their previous comments/arguments. In an AfD it's probably best practices is to strike your earlier comment (if you change your mind) but leaving it visible, then add the changes with a notation that it is new text. For example: ~~This is old stuff~~ and (revised) this is new stuff. This is performed by adding <s> before the text you want to strike, followed with </s> at the end of the text you want to strike. This simple procedure helps others to follow discussions/thoughts better. Please consider doing so if your comments or !votes change. Thanks. Netherzone (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Though I'm here to argue in favor to Keep this page, I don't know Colin and I first became aware of Techspressionism in 2021 through noticing artists using the hashtag and have since become conscious of both the community and the greater sphere of Techspressionism slowly over the past couple of years.

I have found many great artists through Techspressionism as a hashtag and do believe it has gained a life beyond it's creator and the creator's inner circle, and I take note that even on the creator's website it states that anyone who claims to be a Techspressionist is a Techspressionist. It is not exclusive, and it is a way for many artists working in modern tech modes to give a name to what they do. To delete this article would be premature, I believe it is being adopted and growing more with the passing of time and with the ever increasing influx of tech in our modern art world. The entire sphere is likely still coming into focus and while there may be collective debates about what "is" or "isn't" Techspressionism on the road ahead, Techspressionism itself most certainly subsists.

It's growth is of a modern virality itself through artist profiles, posts, tags and a collective consciousness, rather than PR articles or outmoded promotions of that nature. MarioCCult (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — MarioCCult (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to all participants please put your comments at the bottom of the page, such as I have done here. Click edit and scroll down. @Scribe1791: may I suggest you close up the spacing in your comment so editors don't think it's finished. That's what's leading to some of the astray comments landing in the middle of yours. (To be clear, there's nothing wrong with yours, people just don't realize you're not done). Thanks. Star Mississippi 02:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Star Mississippi - I am not exactly sure how to do that without messing up the formatting of the entire thread, as my technical expertise here is fairly limited - if you are able to assist, that would be great. Scribe1791 (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've done so, leaving your keep and your further comment distinct, but please feel free to restore if you think a line break was key to your meaning. Thank you Star Mississippi 01:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for guidance As of March 13 a major contributor to the article Techspressionism has WP:CANVASSed on Instagram, Facebook, and their own talk page. What are the suggested next steps to get this conversation back on track and within the recognized Wikipedia boundaries of discussion? Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates, in your request for deletion it appears that your primary concern is that Techspressionism is simply a "portmanteau" that describes my personal artistic output, with no sourcing to prove otherwise. I have made other members of the Techspressionist community aware of this discussion so that they can weigh in, and actually stated above that I would post a link to the discussion on the Techspressionists Facebook Group. There was no effort made to disguise this action, as it was publicly stated directly. Is this something that is inappropriate if the very fact of whether there are other artists who identify with the term appears to be the primary issue? I was not aware of the term "canvassing" (within the context of Wikipedia) until looking it up just now, or the fact that obtaining public opinion outside Wikipedia is a no-no. It was also brought up in the discussion for deletion above (by a contributor I have no familiarity with) that you did not first raise your concerns in the article's talk page first. Wouldn't this approach be more aligned with a collaborative spirit, versus your declaration that "there is no alternative to deletion"? Lastly, regarding the question of sourcing referring to Techspressionism as a movement, I would point particpants in this discussion here. NB: it was not me who wrote the article, or its headline. Scribe1791 (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-هنرمندانی از سراسر دنیا خودشان را با اصطلاح Techspressionism
همراه دیدند و از این هشتگ استفاده کرده اند.

Colin Goldberg

هرگز از این از کلمه بعنوان به عنوان سازمان یا سبک استفاده نکرده و ازاین کلمه به منظور روش یا رویکرد استفاده کرده . اصطلاحی فرامرز که باعث همراهی هنرمندان زیادی از سراسر جهان شده و امروز هشتگ آن به 71.8 هزار رسیده است .

ورود این اصطلاح به

مثال دیگری از تایید این اصطلاخ می باشد . لطفا تمام منابع را مطالعه بفرمایید . Oxford University Press بعنوان یک لغت

SAHARMOUSSAVI (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — SAHARMOUSSAVI (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KeepRenata Jones (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)— Renata Jones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - I'm holding off on !voting on this AfD for now and am debating whether or not to spend the time to do a source analysis chart, which I may do after the SPA activity dies down. Regarding the subject, Techspressionism, I think it has cultural value, however am doubtful if it has encyclopedic value.

In the meantime, I've worked up some Google N-gram charts for the term/movement/style in relation to all these other terms: Techspressionism, Techspressionist art, Digital art, Computer art, Digital painting, Computer painting, Electronic art, New Media art, Multimedia art, Digital media art, Generative art, Systems art, Ars Electronica, Virtual art, Cybernetic art, Art and science, Technology and art, Augmented reality, Generative art, Algorithmic art, Computer graphics, - and came up cold with ZERO hits for Techspressionism and Techspresionist art in relation to these other terms. I will place screenshots of these on the talk page of this AfD. (Don't know how long these screenshots will remain on talk, they might be taken down by Commons.)

I also found zero hits on google books other than Colin Goldberg's self-published Blurb book. And found zero hits on JSTOR, zero hits on Oxford Art Online, zero hits on entire WP Library.

~~:I do think, however, there is a viable alternative to deletion. This article could be redirected to or merged with Colin Goldberg, Digital art~~ Netherzone (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Netherzone; thanks for your thoughtful note on my user talk page; the links you provided did provide insight and make sense to me. I think that your proposal that the Techspressionism article and the Colin Goldberg merge makes sense; however I would like to see what you think about the proposal that the Colin Goldberg article should go away and be redirected to the Techspressionism article, or simply be deleted, if that makes more sense. I feel that Techspressionism is certainly more notable than I am as an individual artist, as it has grown into a sizable community with many other artists involved. For instance, we have our first museum show coming up in Brooklyn this summer, for which I am not a curator. The other artists in the group feel strongly about the importance of this community, and in this video, Whitney museum curator Christiane Paul discussed the importance of Techspressionism, not me as an individual artist. Regarding the Ngrams you posted, they are based on Google results up to 2019 and Techspressionism did not formulate into an artist group until 2020, so the outcome that there are minimal results in comparison to longstanding terms such as Digital art is predictable. However, Google shows about 12,300 results for "Techspressionism" vs About 4,990 results for "Colin Goldberg". I feel that Techspressionism is not a subset of Digital art and should not be merged into this article, as it encompasses artforms such as painting and sculpture. In fact, the term was created because of the inadequacy of Digital art as a term to describe work that is physical but created with the aid of technology, (such as my own, and that of many others in the community). Please let me know what you think about this line of reasoning. Also, I think the Techspressionism article should be the one that remains of the two since the article has already been deemed B-class (I'm not even really sure what that means), and the Colin Goldberg article is start-class. Certainly, I would add that any edits required to establish a neutral tone should be made. @WomenArtistUpdates, and @Netherzone, what are your thoughts about this proposed solution, and the rationale behind it? Scribe1791 (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply][reply]

Scribe1791 Please read and think about the articles suggested to you on your talk page. I don't think you are understanding Wikipedia's policies about COI editing/involvement and behavior on talk pages and AFD pages. Your discussion fails to brings in any established wikipedia policies as reason for keep. I believe the article is WP:PROMO and fails WP:GNG. Please read WP:PRIMARY. Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WomenArtistUpdates I read them, and respectfully disagree with your position. Note to closer: a cursory Google Scholar search on Techspressionism yields these results. I realize that the actual academic papers are behind a paywall, but I would assume that Google Scholar can capably index their contents. I also submit that the Master's thesis on the topic of Techspressionism by Vivian Lazaridou is currently under review by her university in Greece and was given to me by the author to post on the community website for feedback on a page with writings by notable artists in the community, as well as a short essay by art historian and critic Helen A. Harrison on the topic. Scribe1791 (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"respectfully disagree with your position" is a disingenuous statement after having smeared the nominator's good reputation across multiple off-Wiki online platforms by calling them a "hater" and canvassing a flock of COI single purpose accounts to support your position. That is not how things normally work in this community. There is no hatred going on. Experienced editors like the nominator – who BTW has created over 850 articles most of which are on under-known notable women artists who slipped though the cracks of history – are here to uphold the integrity of the encyclopedia. Challenging the notability of an article is not personal, you only think it is because of your COI and use of undisclosed paid editors in the past to promote yourself and your "movement". Netherzone (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone and @WomenArtistUpdates I apologize for my emotional response on social media, and I have removed the offending statement from my Instagram post. It felt personal, I suppose, especially after I saw the recent effort to strike the term from Wiktionary as well as Wikipedia. However, I do disagree on the issue of notability. @Netherzone, the very sources that the nominator took issue with in their nomination are the same ones that you identified as valid sources for the article on Colin Goldberg, on the article's talk page; " Wired is an excellent source that's contextually relevant to the work. 27East.com looks fine as well esp. since it's an affillate of the Southhampton Press, East Hampton Press and Sag Harbor Express newspapers and Hampton's Art Hub looks good too." Regarding my sharing this nomination for deletion with others, I guess I am not accustomed to the culture here. I still fail to understand why my notifying other artists in the community regarding this nomination for deletion is somehow wrong. I invited other artists to the discussion, not "COI single-purpose accounts". The box that is at the top of this page reads "If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. " I hope that this is still the case. Not that this is relevant in any way to this discussion, but I will say that I share the nominator's (assumed) sentiment that the art world in general is skewed in terms of gender politics, and have made a conscious effort towards gender equality and general cultural diversity in any curatorial (or other) aspects of this project because I believe this is extremely important, and in fact, a responsibility. I am the father of a daughter and I believe this is the way it should be, for what it's worth. I have said all I can say on this matter of whether or not Techspressionism should exist on Wikipedia. Consensus will decide, as it should. Scribe1791 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scribe1791, Well, now I feel it is my time to chime in...you have completely depleted WP:AGF. Netherzone attempted to work with you until they were unable to escape or overlook the COI editing. We have tried to point you to relevant WP policies but still you do not read or hear the messages. You are editing disruptively by WP:DONTGETIT and WP:BLUDGEONING. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scribe1791 Please refrain from continually refactoring your comments here. Your last comment had 22 different revisions. This makes it hard for others to get a grip on what you are trying to communicate from moment to moment. You have been reminded of this twice already. Please use the strike-out feature described above. This AfD has become quite messy. Let us try to keep it an orderly process. Netherzone (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having conducted a research on Techspressionism, that lasted 6 months, to complete my academic dissertation for my Masters degree I would argue that the proposal to delete the Wikipedia article is a rather rush one. Techspressionism, while not characterized by a distinct artistic style or certain guidelines, themes and artistic aspects an artist should follow to fall within the term, is still a valid artistic approach that resonates with many artists, many of which I have personally interviewed. If one studies material on art and technology, they will be able to understand the need for Techspressionism in the art world and how it differs from digital art. My research was based upon various sources where I explained in detail how Techspressionism is linked to art movements that came before it. Like all art movements, Techspressionism is still in a stage where it is developing through its community. I suggest you give my dissertation, which was linked by Colin Goldberg, a read, it was evaluated and it will be soon be published on my university's repository.Viv98 (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC) — Viv98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some input, especially analysis of available source material, from non-canvassed editors would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is always a lag between what is new and what is established. It would be refreshing to see that wikipedia recognizes the magnitude of this international 21st century art movement that is turning technology into a creative tool to express all the reactions, responses, emotions that traditional artists have used traditional art materials in the past...and that our actual scope is international is pretty amazing and we need to be acknowledged as legitimate. HollyGoLightlyGordon (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)— HollyGoLightlyGordon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Merge with Colin Goldberg and redirect as appropriate as a nice WP:ATD. Perhaps it is some new art movement but it doesn't really go much beyond Goldberg at this point. I have taken a look at what is available and I think it's the way to go at the moment. When its time comes the article may well be recreated. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge with Colin Goldberg and redirect suggestion. Valueyou (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEOLOGISM + User:JzG/And the band played on... Kinopiko ^talk 18:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (changing my !vote to delete after viewing the excellent source analysis table below.) ~~Merge with Colin Goldberg or delete~~ - I've been giving this AfD a lot of thought; and after an in-depth analysis of the sources, I concluded that Techspressionism is not Wiki-notable. The article sources focus on Goldberg himself, and works in his solo show titled "Techpressionism", his "manifesto" and curatorial perspective on his concept "Techpressionism". One source mentions another artist who used the term "Techpressionism", which Goldberg believes he himself coined, and so decided to create a "movement" and self-published a Blurb book titled "Techspressionism," on a group show curated by Goldberg titled "Techspressionism: Digital and Beyond" for which an art historian wrote a short forward, apparently as part of her job as the gallery director. The subject of the article is indeed a WP:NEOLOGISM that seems to exist mainly to promote Goldberg, thus is falls into WP:PROMO. While there are several excellent, well-known and Wiki-notable artists who exhibited in the group show, notability is not inherited from them. The rest of the sources are interviews with Goldberg (mostly about his own work), blog or bloggish sources, and hyper-local coverage from the area where the solo and group show took place. If it were truly a "movement" we would be seeing lots of scholarly research about it in art history books; maybe there will be in a number of years, but it is currently WP:TOOSOON. Based on the sourcing it fails WP:GNG. A viable option to deletion is to merge parts of the content with Colin Goldberg, the obvious target for the merge. Netherzone (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed there was off-wiki canvassing on Twitter as well as Facebook & Instagram as mentioned in a comment above. Sigh. Netherzone (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sorry to prolong this discussion but I echo the previous relist and request we get a source analysis here. Consensus is clearly caught between Keeping this article and Merging it and a source review would be helpful. This means listing all sources, in the article and those mentioned here, and assessing their indepdence and reliability, not general statements on how they are insufficient. I just want to note that not all editors arguing to Keep this article are brand new editors who have been canvassed, they may not be proficient editors but they do have some editing experience. Also, aside from the nominator, there is no support for Delete so it looks like this article's content will be somewhere on the project, either Merged to another article or as a standalone article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source analysis[edit]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by [[User:WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)]][reply]
https://www.wired.com/2014/10/if-picasso-had-a-macbook-pro/			The source discusses Colin Goldberg	✘ No
https://www.wliw.org/radio/captivate-podcast/april-19th-2022-colin-goldberg-shirley-ruch/		This is a local arts listing for WLIR	The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail	✘ No
https://www.danspapers.com/2022/04/techspressionism-movement-southampton/		This is an local arts listing and interview	non-sig coverage	✘ No
https://aaqeastend.com/commentary/curators-gallery-colin-goldberg-at-glenn-horowitz-bookseller-east-hampton/		This is an local arts listing and interview	reprint of Colin Goldberg's manifesto	✘ No
https://hamptonsarthub.com/2014/10/21/techspressionism-reflects-impact-of-japanese-aesthetics/		local coverage	non-sig coverage	✘ No
https://www.pbs.org/video/point-h5mrkp/		AHA! A House for Arts is a local public television program presented by WMHT.		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20230112102024/https://www.beyondphotography.online/interviewed-oz-van-rosen/	?	interview	interview with Oz Van Rose	✘ No
https://www.southamptonartscenter.org/techspressionism		listing for show on the Southampton Arts Center gallery website	promotional material	✘ No
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/editors-picks-may-3-2021-1960431		listing for lecture “NFT Now” a Techspressionism Zoom	passing mention	✘ No
https://jameslanepost.com/colin-goldberg-curator-of-techspressionism/05/23/2022/Hamptons-News-Happenings/		local coverage	interview with Colin Goldberg	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:WomenArtistUpdates
https://hamptonsarthub.com/2014/10/21/techspressionism-reflects-impact-of-japanese-aesthetics/	local coverage	non-sig coverage	✘ No
https://www.easthamptonstar.com/arts/2022421/expressive-technology	local coverage	non-sig coverage	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Working on getting the coding right for the 12 citations. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Can't get 12 to show. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

added part 2 --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The source analysis is very helpful. I have also read the article, and the rest of the comments here, and I am not in any sense convinced about notability. A student dissertaion, for example, is no measure of notability as it is defined here. Maybe that where the issue lies. The definition of notability as used by Wikipedia; and on that definition, notability is not met and the article fails to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the source analysis, it is also blatant self promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as shown by the source analysis, this really isn't notable; it clearly could be promotional. If deletion can't be achieved, then a merge or redirect would do, this is not an encyclopedic article in its own right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the result of this discussion ends with delete, then Colin Goldberg should also be sent to WP:AFD because that would fail WP:NARTIST if this movement isn't notable. Theroadislong (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not quite there as established in the chart above.Bikerose (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources don't show notability. The list of artists in the article is unsourced, and five random ones that I've checked don't mention the term. Looks like a promo article or maybe it's just too early - maybe in five years it should be recreated. Artem.G (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Two things. First, a round of applause for @User:WomenArtistUpdates for the great source analysis, and second, I'd count Wired towards RS at least partly, but it's still not enough. I stand by my previous !vote (redir to Goldberg). --Ouro (blah blah) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's some pretty obvious meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry going on here. There are multiple new accounts, which have never edited outside of this discussion, voicing their opinion in favor of keep.--Panian513 18:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The source analysis above illustrates the lack of needed coverage at the moment. If further, reliable coverage is published in the future, then this article should return and be rewritten accordingly, but at the moment, this fails WP:Notability.--Panian513 18:42, 28 March 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 Mammoth Dictionary of Symbols[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Staraction (talk | contribs) 01:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article does not appear to meet WP:NBOOKS; search for sources revealed none to back up notability.

First AfD so if I'm not doing something I'm supposed to please let me know. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Bouch, Gareth (1996-04-26). "The Mammoth Dictionary of Symbols – Nadia Julien (Robinson, £5.99)". Hull Daily Mail. Archived from the original on 2024-03-26. Retrieved 2024-03-26 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "What makes the book so good is the comparative nature of the explanations (because many symbols mean different things in different cultures) which encourages you to look for other links which then takes you on to a different symbol. Soon you're a long way from where you started. Intriguing, informative and thoroughly enjoyable."
2. Hill, Geoff (1996-05-27). "Symbolic meanings: The Mammoth Dictionary of Symbols by Nadia Julien. Robinson Publishing, £5.99". Belfast News-Letter. Retrieved 2024-03-26 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "And, when the frog croaks, it is claiming divine protection for all living creatures. Gone over the edge? No, I've been reading a dictionary of symbols. If you want to know the significance of everything from an abyss to the zodiac, it's in here."
3. Brown, Douglas (1996). "The Mammoth Dictionary of Symbols". Reference Reviews. 10 (6): 7. ProQuest 215220430.
  The article notes: "I think I would call this paperback "fat" rather than "mammoth", but "The Fat Dictionary of Symbols" would not do, and it is actually part of a fairly mammoth series that includes The Mammoth Book of Zombies and The Mammoth Book of Killer Women. It was first published in Belgium in 1989, and contains hundreds of entries on entities of symbolic significance, from "Abyss" to "Zodiac". In her introduction Nadia Julien writes that she has drawn on ..."
4. "The Mammoth Dictionary of Symbols". American Reference Books Annual. Vol. 28. Libraries Unlimited. 1998. p. 288. ISSN 0065-9959.
  This entry verifies that Libraries Unlimited's American Reference Books Annual reviewed this book.
5. Lang, Jovian P.; O'Gorman, Jack (2000). Recommended Reference Books in Paperback (3 ed.). Engelwood, California: Libraries Unlimited. p. 208. ISBN 1-56308-583-6. Retrieved 2024-03-26.
  The book notes: "This exceptional source is for those seeking an explanation of signs and symbols found in the majority of works about parapsychology and the occult. Brief entries can be found on the meaning of specific symbols as they are used by both religious and ethnic groups. Illustrations, although in black-and-white, are beneficial."
6. Smith, Tim (March 1996). "The Great Library". Arcane (4). Future Publishing: 88–89.
  I don't have access to this review. The Wikipedia article says:
  Tim Smith reviewed The Mammoth Dictionary of Symbols for Arcane magazine, rating it a 3 out of 10 overall. Smith comments that "Definitions such as: 'There is a tradition that says that swallows receive the souls of dead kings', or: 'Footwear is an indispensable item of dress in temperate regions', further undermine this as a reference work. That said, it could make a decent enough bog-read if only so you can fill in the gaps yourself."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Mammoth Dictionary of Symbols to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Cunard. BOZ (talk) 06:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to Cunard's sources. Toughpigs (talk) 17:14, 26 March 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 Darkstalkers characters. Even though the related AFD hasn't been closed yet, it looks like it's skewing towards a Keep so I'm moving forward with closing this discussion. If the other article isn't kept, we can change the Merge target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia (Darkstalkers)[edit]

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

Going to be direct: this is yet another Niemti effort, and has the same hallmarks as the previous articles: an overreliance on lists that say next to nothing (often how sexy the character is), sources cited for saying more than they actually are, and ultimately nothing said about her character.

Felicia is a very recognizable character. One of the most recognizable ones from the Darkstalkers franchise, alongside Morrigan. However, recognizable does not equate to *discussion*. Even the recently added academic article added has nothing to do with Felicia, but commentary on cosplay in regards to decency laws, and not an examination of Felicia in those regards (Hell even by the article's own admission the cosplay was changed from the character's appearance).

Sadly...you can only say "Felicia is mostly naked" so many times. That alone doesn't merit an article. C. Viper was compared to a King of Fighters character in terms of design by a massive number of publications...and just that. And that didn't survive an AfD. Multiple Dead or Alive female characters also had some variation of "they're sexy" as the crux of their whole article, and they also didn't pass notability standards.

I would really like Felicia to have something, but after extensive searching...all we have is "she's mostly naked and sexy for it" and "she's one of the most recognizable of the lot because she gets reused a lot". That's not a base to build around when all the commentary is the same. Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Darkstalkers characters. Whilst I disagree with a sudden unilateral redirect, I'd agree that Felicia isn't independently notable; reception has been very puffed-up. I am open to re-evaluating my stance if very good sources are found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. While I oppose bold redirect for such cases, sadly, my BEFORE fails to find anything outside the passing mention ina master thesis that I've added and a rewritten press releases about a comic [45]. The current reception reads nice but I can't find a single source that meets WP:SIGCOV. Ping me if you do. PS. I checked ja and zh articles and they are even worse than ours (ja is a game guide, and zh is a stub). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above reasonings. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per all. I don't find enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion as List of Darkstalkers characters, the proposed Merge target, is also up for a AFD deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If not List of Darkstalkers characters, then merge to Darkstalkers#Characters. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 09:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Greenish Pickle. If the merge target isn't kept, then this can be included at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Darkstalkers characters preferably, or if the list is deleted merge to Darkstalkers. Not enough secondary coverage for an in-depth character article. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:12, 30 March 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!} 02:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KFRE-CA[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Let'srun (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We no longer do articles sourced solely (whether directly or, seemingly in this case, implicitly) to FCC records — we need significant coverage. (The lack of any known programming information is a red flag — I suspect this was probably a rebroadcast of another station or 24/7 service, but again, we have nothing to go on here.) A remnant of the much looser "standards" of 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This station's legal history seems to have been a mess—and a non-notable one at that! It definitely was rebroadcasting KBFX-CD (then KBFX-CA) at one point, as Pappas owned it. I have one 2004 article from the Bakersfield Californian talking about transmitter issues with 58 and suggesting tuning to 27, even calling it "Fox 58 and 27". Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:15, 26 March 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!} 02:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maaron Business School[edit]

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

Can't find anything that would meet WP:SIGCOV online. Fails WP:GNG. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Cameroon. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could only find two listicles covering this school. Cortador (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree, I couldn't find SIGCOV for this either. GraziePrego (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources available. Killarnee (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant media coverage to indicate notability. By the way, if the decision ends up being to maintain the article, the external link to maarontraining.com is no longer functional -- they appear to have transitioned to using https://maaron.education. WmLawson (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:49, 30 March 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. I see a consensus here to Keep this article given the newly found sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worcester Preparatory School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Preparatory school lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" required per WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and Maryland. AusLondonder (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be enough sourcing available to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only source in the article is this one [46] which is simply a directory listing. What sourcing have you found that suggests this meets GNG? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even checked the article? A comment like this on an article like this simply discredits you. AusLondonder (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that AfD comments should only be based on what's already in the article? This, I'm afraid, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: Please provide the sources you think demonstrate WP:N. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty good. Plenty of more minor references. I'm sure others can find more. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't say that. But simply asserting sources exist without proof, particularly with a wholly unsourced article in question, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This, I'm afraid, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. No, I think an argument that GNG is met should be based on some evidence. You will note I specifically asked you "What sourcing have you found that suggests this meets GNG?" (My emphasis). Stating it is met without evidence is not helpful at AfD, and I know you are very experienced with AfD and know how this process works. Thank you for now providing one of your sources. I'll review that. But, of course, GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. So are there any others? I could look myself, of course, and I will. But if you are saying GNG is met, and if you can present your evidence, that could save a lot of duplication of effort. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now read the Dispatch source above and also looked into who The Dispatch are. The article itself has some very good significant coverage. The most important aspect of finding sources is in showing that an article can be written, and there is plenty of information in that article that could be used to write our article, so on that score it is excellent. On reliability, I think it is good too. It's a newspaper account, but although we only have their word for what we are being told, it has gone through editorial review, and is clearly based on an interview with the headmaster. The interview aspect presents a problem with independence, but it is not a verbatim interview, and this source would be quite acceptable if used carefully alongside other sources. It is reporting in a newspaper, based on that interview, and contains a mixture of primary and secondary sourced information.

So yes, useful for an article, but what it does not prove is notability (which is why we need multiple sources). The piece is published in a paper that is online and traditional paper based for the local area. They have 700 subscribers and serve "Ocean City, West Ocean City, Berlin, Ocean Pines, Fenwick Island and Bethany Beach area since 1984". A local newspaper writing an article about a local school does not demonstrate that the school is notable. At least, not on its own. I'd accept this as one source towards GNG (although strictly it would fail WP:NCORP, but I think that would be overly restrictive for a school). We need a bit more though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my comment was based on the snide comment by AusLondonder Have you even checked the article? A comment like this on an article like this simply discredits you, which certainly implied that only what was already in the article was relevant to an AfD discussion and was verging on a personal attack. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analysing other editors comments at AfD and the rationale for them is a long way from a personal attack. If you are suggesting keeping a previously unsourced article then it is common sense to share the sources you locate so they can be discussed and analysed by editors. AusLondonder (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like A comment like this on an article like this simply discredits you are certainly very close to a personal attack. Don't really see how you can deny that. I am not "discredited" by expressing my honest opinion just because you don't happen to agree with it. Just don't make comments like that about other editors and we'll all be happy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expressing an opinion without evidence at AfD is discrediting on anyone. "Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements." I might add that suggesting a competence issue on my part (This, I'm afraid, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia) is a far more serious personal attack. AusLondonder (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my previous comment about implying that the current state of the article was all that mattered. I'm sorry if that was not your intent, but it's certainly what it looked like. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - was unable to find in-depth coverage from secondary sources suitable to pass NCOPR or GNG. There's a U.S. News & World Report entry but just a listing, doesn't count for establishing N. An nces.ed.gov entry as well. The only things that I have found that aren't catalogue entries are Worcester Preparatory School Coastal Style that ~~feels like WP:CHURNALISM~~ is literally an ad, and this Worcester Preparatory School Private School Review ~~that won't load on my current connection~~ is another catalogue listing. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 15:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see the one source above, it didn't turn up in my BEFORE search so I appreciate Necrothesp linking it here. It doesn't, however, move the needle for me in my concerns for WP:N. But I would happily reconsider if others, as mentioned, can find more. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it's a hyper-local source, for which caution is needed per WP:AUD and the tone gives the impression of a puff piece with North Korean quotes like "has become a pristine landmark of high quality education in the community" and "WPS can boast staggering academic achievements". Additionally, half of the article is just quotes from the headmaster about what a wonderful school it is. AusLondonder (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This source [47] is a paper in partial fulfillment of a Ph.D. studying the education of social skills based on a programme at this school. Seems like an excellent source to me. Then there is lots of local news coverage such as [48] which is rather unfortunate for being regionally restricted content but I used a VPN to verify that it is about the school, although somewhat local. In fact there are thousands of hits in Newspapers online in local newspapers, particularly the Salisbury Maryland Daily Times. These are primary and mostly events announcements although there are the usual reports of pupil achievments and the like. The newspaper coverage does not meet GNG in itself, but it does show this is an active school with a high local profile. Additionally this paper [49] is about Wikipedia use in research and perceptions in secondary schools. One of the authors is a librarian at this school, and so although not directly referenced, it is clear that the school itself has influenced that paper. The local newspaper write up presented by Necrothesp does not meet GNG on its own, but provides something to build the article on. There is a suitably large enrollment and the school has been in operation for over 50 years. The Ph.D. thesis, to my mind, pulls this across the line for notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your work in looking for sources. My only thought is that generally a thesis in this context is effectively a primary source, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. AusLondonder (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is primary for the thesis, which includes the design of the 4th grade social skills curriculum at Worcester, but the introduction and background, especially pages 1-6 are secondary. Other information in there is also secondary. We cannot use the thesis as secondary sourcing for the thesis being made itself - as clearly this is the primary source for the thesis - but in this case this work contains significant background information about the school and its programme. So I think this one definitely counts towards GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
Sources
1. Russo, Brian (2015-12-10). "Tradition, Technology Meet At Worcester Prep". Maryland Coast Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2024-03-15. Retrieved 2024-03-27.
  The article notes: "In 1970, Dr. Barry Tull was a young public school teacher who decided to take a chance on a little private school in Berlin. He’s been at Worcester Preparatory School (WPS) ever since and is marking his 30th year as headmaster. In its 45-year history, the school has had just two headmasters with the other being founding Headmaster Franklin Lynch. ... Today, WPS has more than quadrupled in size, amassing almost 550 students from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade, and its campus on the south end of Berlin’s Main Street has grown to 45 acres and has become a pristine landmark of high quality education in the community. ... While WPS can boast staggering academic achievements, the cost of that education is something that can stop many families from even considering sending their children there."
2. Bunting, Tia Wheatley (2009). Development and evaluation of a technology integrated social skills curriculum (PhD thesis). University of Delaware. ProQuest 304870880.
  The thesis says the approvers are:
  1. Kathleen M. Minke, Ph.D. Acting Director, School of Education
  2. Michael Gamel-McCormick, Ph.D. Interim Dean of the College of Human Services, Education and Public Policy
  3. Debra Hess Norris, M.S. Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education
  Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship says:
  * Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.
  I agree with Sirfurboy regarding the primary and secondary source analysis. I consider this thesis to be sufficiently reliable as it was reviewed and approved by three senior leaders at the University of Delaware (the guideline mentions "supervised by recognized specialists in the field" as contributing to reliability). The thesis notes on pages 1–2: "Worcester Preparatory School is a private coed preparatory day school. The campus is located on the Eastern Shore of Maryland in the town of Berlin. More than 500 students from Preschool through Grade 12 attend Worcester Preparatory School. The students come from all over Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia. The school is known for high academic standards and preparation for college. ... The teaching of social skills begins in the second grade at Worcester. Second-grade students complete a course called Manners, which includes introductions, telephone manners, how to treat a guest and be a guest, writing invitations and thank-you notes, and table manners. This is a classroom course taught by the second-grade social studies teacher. In addition, Worcester Preparatory School wants a social skills curriculum for the fourth grade, which consists of two classes of eighteen students, for a total of thirty-six students, diversified in gender and race. The fourth-grade faculty at Worcester wants the social skills curriculum to include table etiquette, cell phone etiquette, Internet etiquette (netiquette), social etiquette, and appearance. The faculty wants technology incorporated into the course."</ref>
3. "New center in use as school's 20th year begins". The Daily Times. 1990-02-21. Archived from the original on 2024-03-27. Retrieved 2024-03-27 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "There's a new million-dollar Athletic and Performing Arts Center at the Worcester Country School in Berlin. The building is part of the independent school's 20th anniversary celebration and is already in use for indoor sports activities, parent meetings, class sessions and dramatic and musical productions. This building, however, is not the only news at the preschool-through-grade 12 school. ... One of the Worcester Country School teachers was named the top middle school science teacher in the nation by the National Science Teachers' Association; two of the teachers have received commendations from Gov. William Donald Schaefer; several have been honored by computer and software companies; and, the students are continually being recognized for excellence in mathematics, essay writing, community service and computer use. In the past year, WCS teachers received two national awards, and students were honored by Center Stage for play writing, the Daughters of the American Revolution and the American Legion for essay writing, Apple Computer Inc. for community service, the Computer Learning Foundation for a student novel and by the Math Counts competition in Annapolis for having for the highest scoring math team in the region."
4. "Reagan To Honor Worcester Dean". The Daily Times. 1988-06-23. Archived from the original on 2024-03-27. Retrieved 2024-03-27 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "On July 26, Academic Dean Dr. Merle Marsh, representing the Worcester Country School, will be honored by President Reagan at a national awards ceremony on the south lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C. The honor is a result of the 1987 project of the school's Computer Club featuring a public information campaign about Assateague National Seashore. Marsh served as the adviser for the student project. Superintendent Rodger Rector of Assateague nominated the school for this national award. ... The Worcester Country School group has already received national awards from Apple Computer Inc. for this project. The students involved which included children in grades 4-6 from the Eastern Shores of Maryland and Virginia and Southern Delaware, were also honored with a plaque presented to them in the Office of the Secretary of the Interior by the Head of the National Parks Bill Mott and the Superintendent of the Assateague National Seashore Rodger Rector. Throughout the Worcester Country School's community service project the students used their computer skills to learn about and inform others about the erosion problems of the beaches."
5. Less significant coverage:
  1. Taylor, Susan (2007). Berlin (Images of America). Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4396-1772-4. Retrieved 2024-03-27 – via Google Books.
    The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Worcester Country School, the region's independent school, opened in 1970, changing its name to Worcester Preparatory School in 1999 to reflect its college preparatory mission."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Worcester Preparatory School to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I've stricken my !delete above, based on the sources and their analysis provided above by Cunard. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:42, 27 March 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!} 03:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.NET Bio[edit]

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

Fails WP: N. I can't find any additional sources that would establish notability. Of the four sources on the page, two don't mention the library by name, and the other two are from Microsoft. This apparently had a PROD within an hour of the article's creation in 2013 which is kind of silly, but I'm sending this to AfD just to be safe. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also cannot find any independent sources to establish notability. Quuxbazbarfoo (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's given a small amount of coverage in one book but other than that there's nothing I could find for sourcing. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:29, 26 March 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 Slackware#Dependency resolution. as an ATD. I don't think this discussion will benefit from an third relisting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swaret[edit]

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

A PROD on this article was removed because "Swaret was used" at some point in the past. The justification, based on the edit history, is that a singular user on a public forum said that they used the package some unknown amount of time ago. I'm sending this to AfD because this added source does not establish notability. It's not reliable, does not provide extensive coverage, and it isn't clear whether the source is necessarily secondary. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD"d so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found on a few linux discussion boards, then nothing... I don't see notability for this software. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Slackware#Dependency resolution, where it's mentioned, and honestly the content there is already better. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:01, 31 March 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. (non-admin closure) microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Fleming (historian)[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG, though I will note the common name when looking for sources. The bibliography of the article when moved out of the draftspace was extensive, given here if it aids in anyone's reference search in an attempt to meet WP:NAUTHOR, but most of those only appear to be chapters in various books. Withdrawn. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 00:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, History, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found and added to the article two authored books with multiple reviews each, an edited volume with again multiple reviews, and another authored book for which I could not find reviews. It's difficult to be sure because of the common name, but they're all on medieval English history and I think all his. That's enough for WP:AUTHOR, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per improvements by above. And overall notability per WP:GNG. Also sources looks ok.BabbaQ (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lionel Cristiano^? 14:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn nomination, Speedy Keep in no small part due to David Eppstein above. Thanks everyone. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:36, 27 March 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.