Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 16	November 18 >

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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teckla, Wyoming

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

Lots of references to this in terms of geology and specifically coal, because when you look at the correct location on the topos and aerials, it has since been overrun by the North Antelope Rochelle Mine, because this is Powder River coal country. There's also a big substation named after the place which was built around 1990, a ways to the west. Before that, it apparently was a single house, and according to the Wyoming State Library, it was Teckla Post Office", named after one of the postmistresses. No evidence I can find that the house was part of a town. Mangoe (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just a poster-child for why the "it has a post office and someone lived there once, therefore it must be/have been a legally-recognised populated community" tendency is just flat-out wrong. There's just nothing there to write an actual encyclopaedia article about. Nobody ever decided that Wikipedia suddenly became something other than an encyclopaedia when writing about populated places, Wikipedia is not a gazetteer and this is a pure gazetteer listing.

@Mangoe: - am I right that doing full WP:BEFORE on this took easily ~30 minutes or more? I expect so given the work you had to do with topos and the state library. And the combined effect of people double-checking your WP:BEFORE here at AFD will easily push this into man-hours of work total? Yet creating this article took the creator seconds. Two minutes earlier they created Turnercrest, Wyoming and two minutes later they created Rockypoint, Wyoming, all created simply by importing listings on GNIS (which is unreliable for whether a place was populated or not and is not evidence of legal recognition) into Wikipedia. And unlike some of the other mass-creation campaigns, this one happened relatively recently.

The sooner we add bare gazetteer-listings to WP:NOT, the same way we did with dictionary definitions/directory listings (which is what gazetteer listings basically are anyway), the better. If an encyclopaedic article can be written about it, then great - I've raised some bare gazetteer listings to articles that are at least within spitting distance of being encyclopaedic myself - but we really need a full solution to this GNIS/GEONet stub spam that doesn't involve having to do a full WP:BEFORE on every single one because it's a total time-waste for so many cases. Apologies for the rant but this is just how I see things. FOARP (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP:: Typically it takes a minimum of 15 minutes or so to do the most basic look at the maps and aerials and to do the first search. IF I don't immediately find something in either that makes it clear it is/was a real town, the time starts to mount up. In this case it took quite a bit longer because of the large number of false hits and because the GNIS coordinates were inaccurate, as sometimes happens. And of course it takes time to enter the AfD. I would guess I might have spent as much as a hour on this case. Turnercrest, Wyoming was much quicker because the third Ghit resolved all questions, but that's rare. And I have two cases on the back burner which are real ghost towns with quite a bit of history which I haven't had time to write up properly. Mangoe (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "is an unincorporated community" is negligently false. Reywas92^Talk 14:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another unencyclopedic geostub. Avilich (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2021 (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piumi Hansamali

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

WP:BIO is not met here, notably WP:ANYBIO JusticeForce101 (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JusticeForce101 (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Was this article ever deleted after the previous AfD closed as "delete" on January 22, 2020? User:Gihan Jayaweera seems to have simply removed the AfD banner ~~the day of~~ a year after the AfD closure. Did the deletion ever occur? Pilaz (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It was deleted and then gently came to main space again. --JusticeForce101 (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to click on "logs" above to get more of the story. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check here who re-created and accepted to mainspace. It is not me. So, when some admins accept them after many reviews, some amateur editors again nominate them to delete. What is the point on that? Clearly, you all can see that, this editor is keep insulting my work by citing many lies. He has some anger with me. I don't know why. But this is unacceptable. GihanJayaweera^TALK 13:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks everyone for your comments, I should have checked the logs. Pilaz (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2021 (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. The "delete" !votes appear to hae the stronger case. Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iris 13

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

As far as I can see they have been going close to a decade and they have released a couple of singles and an EP. Fails musicbio and sigcov. scope_creep^Talk 17:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there are enough references here and they are of okay quality. I think this is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first eight reference on here are annoucements of released singles and constitute straight PR notices. scope_creep^Talk 15:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While around under another name for 10 years, their debut single as IRIS 13 seems to be mid-2020 and first album is apparently due mid-2021. Maybe draftify as WP:TOOSOON? LizardJr8 (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not draftify, as it's unlikely the article will be viewed by our readers and will probably wind up getting deleted in six months time. I feel the sources are good enough to keep the article now. NemesisAT (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They're is no secondary sources here. They changed their name because they were unsuccessful. They're completely non-notable. If there was any large successes on the horizon, it would have been immediately visible. But it is not. We are getting more and more of these bands that are cank, for a better word. Just completly mediocre. They have no standing. They is no fans (there is now sites guage fan numbers), no social media presence, no streaming on the main platforms. They are effectively a pub band and now because the marketing tool are relatively cheap, can keep marketing themselves for almost no money, that makes them feel as though they have a presence. But they are dont. They are mediocre and they only reason we record them here is due to them marketing themselves. Not the fans, as they don't exist. scope_creep^Talk 11:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable sourcing galore presented in the article and I could not find any reliable secondary sources to even show this band qualifies for WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2021 (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. Including the comment on the talk page as a "keep" !vote, there is clear consensus. Renaming, adding sources, or any other issues can be handled through normal editing processes. Randykitty (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Literary Contest Of Novels For Youth

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

Non notable award. Sources provided are all primary or to Government pages, WP:BEFORE didn't bring up any third-party coverage, but admittedly my search is limited as I don't understand Maltese. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep: There are now at least 3 independent sources, Newsbook, Lovin Malta and MaltaToday reporting on winners. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found another source. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Loveboooks has left a significant comment on this AfD's talkpage which should be reviewed as part of the discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as The Literary Contest of Novels for Youth. Enough secondary coverage to show general notability. It's understandable that a WP:BEFORE didn't show much. Isabelle ^🔔 13:54, 19 November 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatoon stabbing

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

Non-notable statement article and entirely routine and mediocre event. scope_creep^Talk 23:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saskatchewan-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. An incident like this doesn't necessarily need a Wikipedia article just because it got a small blip of coverage in the first day or two — the grounds for an article about something like this would be if it could be shown to have an enduring impact that would pass the ten year test. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill crime. It's been almost 6mths since the event and this is the first I've heard of it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, not enough coverage to have a page. Alex-h (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2021 (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. Deleting for a variety of reasons presented - WP:NEVENT, failure to present WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV and the looking sockpuppet investigation taking place around link spamming.

Thanks for your contributions and assuming good faith with this decision. If you have a problem with it, please bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 May Kado massacre

Per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 May Kado massacre, resuming in smaller batches (25 articles), articles Category:Massacres of the Tigray War rely on deprecated source (Atlas of the humanitarian situation). This source is a data table listing dates and numbers of casualties. Each line on that data table does not warrant its own article; they do not fulfill the notability guidelines set forth in WP:EVENT. They also have some clear WP:NPOV issues in most articles through the use of other sources that don't mention the specific event, or through social media based source WP:SPS. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sourcing for a standalone article. Information is already in Timeline of the Tigray War#Timeline. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timtempleton Hello, just to let you know, this is a batch of 25 articles, not just one. I'm trying to resolve this, but i'm not sure where it went wrong, i'm trying to link related pages such as Megab massacre to this deletion discussion, so far no luck, can you help? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2021 (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/2021 November 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Rather than calling it a deprecated source, the report has been published online at ResearchGate which is considered generally unreliable at RSP. The report has also been constantly evolving; per the authors, they are continuing to update it as information comes in. I have no doubt that the authors have been meticulous in the compilation of their data and presentation in this report, but it is still evolving and changing online, and is published on a website where it is considered a self-published source. Platonk (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ehm: opening the same discussion again after a decision was made? Rastakwere (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the earlier AfD: "I would recommend renomination in much smaller batches, after searches for sources have been completed." Platonk (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Rastakwere (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Rastakwere (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Rastakwere (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In defence of the articles on recent massacres in Ethiopia
- Major source of these articles is indeed the “Atlas of humanitarian situation”: I have no idea whether it has been reviewed or not by Journal of Maps. Probably that is also not the issue, as the journal’s reviewers will look at mapping issues, and will not verify the facts on the ground. But the main review of the veracity of the massacres reported in that “Atlas” was done by the dozen of journalists who extensively quoted the document – one can hardly imagine Associated Press, The Economist, or The Guardian publishing headline articles about it without cross-verification.
- The same “Atlas” appears now in a new version^[1] – there is no more mention of the Journal of Maps, but authors cooperate with the UK-based NGO Every Casualty Counts (ECC), an organisation that dedicates its activities to documenting war crimes and war victims. This gives additional authority to the work, as this organisation makes a strong point of the correct use of methods and standards in casualty recording. It would be good to add the reference to the new version of the “Atlas” to the articles, and even mention the involvement of ECC.
- To prepare the articles that are discussed here, I have indeed started from lists presented in the said “Atlas”, and then verified systematically whether the massacre was mentioned by a other sources also; this could be another database of victims, or an article in international press. As a consequence, less than half of the massacres listed in the Atlas were covered in a Wikipedia article.
- The validity of the Tghat victims list, that was used in parallel with the Atlas has been verified in a recent detailed article published by Associated Press.^[2]
- Note also that the Wikipedia project "Military History" visited most of these articles, and rated them mostly as “Start Class”, sometimes B Class – all are invited to further contribute to these articles.
- Several articles have also been rated for the Wiki projects “Death”, “Ethiopia” and “Africa”, again without the project coordinators listing any major problems with these articles.
- Use of similar structure in many of the articles, certainly when originally published – is there any Wikipedia rule preventing this?
- Deleting articles on massacres in Ethiopia, simply because media have no access, while having pages and pages about shootings in the US, is unbalanced – and, as mentioned above, leads to “continental bias” in Wikipedia.
- Obviously, there is so much editing work to do on many of these articles, and likely I may have missed sources.
- My suggestion is that editors can pick up any article in the Category:Massacres of the Tigray War and further work on it, cq suggest to qualify one or another as draft. In the meantime the suggestion for deletion should be removed from all these pages.
- Reversely to some intervenants in the discussion about the first nomination, some of the reviewers of those difficult pages on these massacres left messages of appreciation: See for instance Talk:Addi_Gabat_massacre, or User_talk:Rastakwere#A_cup_of_tea_for_you. Rastakwere (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Rastakwere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (of Tigray War)

— Note to closing admin: Rastakwere (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. (all 25 nominated articles)

Tagged by Platonk (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have searched for reliable sources for all of 25 articles before the nomination per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 May Kado massacre recommendation. These 25 articles don't have reliable sources that is also independent of the subject, these articles are specifically supported by unreliable/self published sources discussed in the first AFD. The creator of these bad articles, recent edits underscores the lack of credible sources [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. I have mentioned this several times before in the previous AFD and i will mention it again, the creator, Rastakwere also repeatedly uses other sources such as CBC^[3] ,Euronews^[4], World Radio^[5] and The Guardian^[6] which doesn't mention the claimed events, one of many examples such as in Bizet massacre. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rastakwere i saw your use of a tag [[6]], and i just want to respond, i'm not the one creating 100+ articles based on WP:SPS sources, nor am i the one editing on this topic on almost daily basis for months. I already drew concern back in July Talk:Grizana massacre about your use of questionable sources, but refained from pursuing this matter in hope(out of good faith) better sources would be used by you. Since July you created even more articles based on dodgy sources, and you used other sources which didn't mention claimed events, in a very misleading manner. Just so you know, i have identified and searched for sources (in vain) for another batch of 25 trash articles your created, which i will nominate right after this nomination concludes. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2020 May Kado massacre, no comment on rest - This is the one I spot checked, and it does not appear to pass WP:GNG. 2 unreliable sources (ResearchGate is WP:SELFPUBLISH), rest are primary sources. Google News and Google Books searches didn't turn up GNG passing articles that I could see. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I spot-checked a few articles, and did not see any with sufficient sourcing to be kept. (by comparison, in the first mass nomination, some articles did plausibly have sourcing) If Rastakwere (or somebody else) cannot demonstrate a good source, these will all be deleted. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I haven't checked all 25 of these personally, but I now trust that other editors have done so. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep 2020 Shire massacre~~ (multiple good sources including The Guardian; the time scale for university researchers to get articles through peer review can take 6-18 months, especially during the pandemic epoch and depending on the discipline and journal, but research articles by Wikipedia notable authors (and many non-notable university authors too) at well-respected universities still tends to be better fact-checked and put into context than mainstream western media articles, so being pedantic about "self-published" sources is somewhat misleading); Boud (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 2020 Shire massacre on the grounds of copyright violation. The events in Shire Inda Selassie have been quite significant in the Tigray War, so I have re-used the sources, but not the original parts of the Wikipedia article text, in Shire in the Tigray War. This will make the copyright clerks' task easier (i.e. no tidying to do if the article is deleted). Boud (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Ala'isa massacre into Hagere Selam massacres and extend the definition of the Hagere Selam massacres to include a wider date range; the Nyssen quote from Ethiopia Insight is useful to illustrate the event (Hagere Selam massacres of December 2020) beyond raw statistics; Boud (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the others into Casualties of the Tigray War#Civilian deaths and/or Timeline of the Tigray War in the cases where the information is not yet there. Boud (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rastakwere is correct that Desta Haileselassie's victim list that is hosted on GAFAM and (sort of) linked to by Tghat is considered reliable for listing Tigrayan victims by Associated Press (but irrelevant for listing Amhara victims). The bad choice of hosting by Desta is annoying and violates the privacy of people wishing to consult the list, but that doesn't make the source unreliable. Here's a more complete form of the reference to the AP in-depth profile of Desta Haileselassie and his list.^[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boud (talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Boud: please provide the mutiple reliable sources you see for 2020 Shire massacre here, and read carefully again the Guardian source ^[8] It says about a fiery exchange in early December, no casualty figures given. The article relies on Atlas about a claimed event between 15-17 November and 200 casualties. Sources don't match, this is what i tried to warn other users about Rastakwere misleading use of sources that doesn't mention the claimed events. Another misused Guardian source^[9] where Jan Nyssen is described as; Prof Jan Nyssen, a geographer who led the investigation and who has spent decades living and working in Tigray. the source is considered unreliable and self published by Wikipedia, and it's questionable whether the person leading the investigation can be considered indepedent of the subject. Furthermore that Guardian source is frequently used in articles that doesn't mention the claimed events such as on Ba'ati Akor massacre, Beles massacre, Berakit massacre, 2021 Selekhlekha massacre and others. That's why users should carefully read whether sources introduced by the creator actually matches the claimed events. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the alert. See my update. Boud (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Each one of these 25 articles fails WP:NEVENT — specifically, and in spirit. Each one is being used as a WP:COATRACK ("a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects.") The authors of these 106 articles (including these 25) on individual events of the Tigray War are engaging in WP:ADVOCACY ("the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view").

NEVENT says "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."

NEVENT requires for a standalone article, both:

Depth of coverage: "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable." Very few news articles have any such depth of coverage for these individual events.
Duration of coverage: "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." There is no duration of coverage of these individual events.

The majority of the citations used in these 25 (of 106) articles are for the purposes of COATRACK and do not cover the individual event for which the article is named, or they mention them as one of a collection of multiple events. The focus of the reliable sources that have been included in these articles is broader than any one individual event. This alone supports the idea of using these sources for an article such as Timeline of the Tigray War (which exists already) while it does not support the idea of individual standalone articles for each individual event (skirmish/massacre/incursion/battle).

Several of the other sources/citations used in these 25 (of 106) articles do not meet Wikipedia's reliable source standards. Blogs, self-published websites such as ethiopiatigraywar.com and tghat.com, self-published sources such as ResearchGate being used to host an as-yet-unpublished and not peer reviewed work, and more violations of RS guidelines. The authors of these 25 of 106 articles would have us bend the rules for their specific ADVOCACY, when instead we should be sanctioning them for wasting editors' time.

The issue at hand is not whether or not these events are true and happened, it is how we handle them in Wikipedia.

The authors of these 106 articles (and for this AfD, these 25), have been using these article as COATRACKs to hang all manner of mention of how bad this war is, how the victims are suffering, how the perpetrators are committing war crimes, etc. These themes are repeated for each and every article. Though a tragedy, Wikipedia is not to be used as a news medium to get our their advocacy message.

Taking a single article for example, 2020 Shire massacre, which Boud would have us keep, there is but a single citation, The Guardian that even comes close to contributing towards notability... and it is the only one (thus failing to pass notability standards). Of the other five citations: there are two self-published sources, two that don't mention "shire", and one is radio (ain't gonna listen, but based on its title it probably doesn't mention 'shire' either).

All of these events are already listed in Timeline of the Tigray War, therefore delete all of these 25 (and probably the other 81 of the original 106 collection). Platonk (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will revisit the specific case of 2020 Shire massacre soon; Dawit S Gondaria has a valid point that I looked through it too quickly (thanks!).

However, please do not confuse the other 81 articles with the current 25 articles. There is no way of having a constructive discussion if we try to discuss 106 articles in parallel. Please respect the consensus of the previous discussion. Thanks.

Regarding the claims of WP:ADVOCACY, your extension from the original author of the articles to other authors is verging on a violation of WP:AGF, and I think it's better to avoid responding to it, since it's a distraction from the issue of the 25 articles themselves.

I'll get back to 2020 Shire massacre hopefully within the next few hours and update my !vote. Boud (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Scroll up for my updated !vote. Boud (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is clearly going to end in a trainwreck if the question is keep/delete, I don't think it's realistic to do due diligence to this many articles on the timeline of a regular AfD. If it is the case that a significant amount of these articles have serious problems, however, mass draftification or merge-based solutions may be an option. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all misleading use of sources and fail of WP:NEVENT, see my comment on NPP talk. In the case of Megab massacre, there do not appear to be any reliable sources that I could find confirming the occurrence of a massacre. These articles should not have passed NPP. (t · c) buidhe 19:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Heads up, the creator Rastakwere is adding more sources that do not mention the claimed events [[7]] & and in the case of 2021 Shire massacre [[8]], he changed the dates and tries to present 2 separate events as one, one claimed extra-judicial killings by the self published source, and one after a protest event by the Nation Kenya source. Read carefully if sources introduced by this user matches claimed events!Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read the full articles and do not only do a search on the place name; spelling can differ in transliteration from Tigrinya to English. Begasheka = Bega Sheka, etc. And, with telecommunication and other blockades imposed for months, the same event can be reported months later with a few days margin.Rastakwere (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case of Begasheka Tsion massacre you recently placed a Telegraph source^[10][[[9]] after the date 06 December 2020 which is unsupported by the Telegraph source, which discusses incidents in February 2021. The claimed event with the December 06 date, and the victim count is only mentioned in the Researchgate(Atlas) source. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Maybe you two could work together to create some merged articles, keeping in mind WP:AGF. To some degree, you each have valid points. Boud (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NEVENT; these events do not have enough secondary-source coverage to meet notability guidelines. Most sources cited are unrelated to the events, and the ones that are related fail WP:RS. --WMSR (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. It's refspam for Tigray: Atlas of the humanitarian situation, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jnyssen. MarioGom (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Annys, S., Vanden Bempt, T., Negash, E., De Sloover, L., Ghekiere, R., Haegeman, K., Temmerman, D., Nyssen, J., 2021. Tigray: Atlas of the humanitarian situation, version 2.1. Ghent (Belgium): Ghent University, Department of Geography Archived 2021-10-13 at archive.today
^ Associated Press, 15 November 2021: 'You can't even cry loudly': Counting Ethiopia's war dead
^ CBC, 2 April 2021: As It Happens: The Friday Edition (from 28:00 to 35:30) Tigray, Ethiopia Massacre
^ EuroNews, 2 April 2021 – See film embedded in the news item: G7 'seriously concerned' about human rights violations in Ethiopia's Tigray region
^ https://theworld.org/media/2021-04-02/counting-victims-tigray
^ The Guardian, 2 April 2021: Ethiopia: 1,900 people killed in massacres in Tigray identified
^ Anna, Cara; Keyton, David; Castaneda, Nat (2021-11-15). "'You can't even cry loudly': Counting Ethiopia's war dead". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2021-11-15. Retrieved 2021-11-20.
^ 'Slaughtered like chickens': Eritrea heavily involved in Tigray conflict, say eyewitnesses
^ The Guardian, 2 April 2021: Ethiopia: 1,900 people killed in massacres in Tigray identified
^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/terror-and-security/bodies-torn-pieces-ethiopian-eritrean-troops-accused-massacre/

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Tucson shooting

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

Not a notable event, especially considering that people are killed, and kill, every day in every country. The fact that law enforcement is involved does not make the event notable or noteworthy. – S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. – S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. – S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. – S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTNEWS and it is likely no lasting legacy will develop from this single event. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS, despite the minor stir it created on train news websites like Trains.com.TH1980 (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with others for WP:NOTNEWS Alex-h (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 as an WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2021 (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. The standard week has not yet passed but the consensus is plain and essentially overwhelming to the extent I am not sure what sort of argument could be made to generate any outcome other than keep. Fenix down (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Morrison

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

Player fails WP:NFOOTY. Draftify until first professional appearance. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: it is correct that he hasn't made a pro appearance, however due to his unusual move from Scotland to Germany he has attracted media attention which I would imagine amounts to WP:SIGCOV (at least in English-language publications and therefore English Wikipedia, I'd be surprised if he appeared in German Wiki on that basis as he is just another teenage academy import at Bayern so probably not much to say locally); indeed I added a BBC ref this evening (published today) which is of decent length and focuses fully on him and his Scottish teammate. But others may deem this insufficient and I wouldn't argue with their decision, hence 'weak'. Crowsus (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG which surpasses the NFOOTBALL failure. Giant Snowman 09:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG as above. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A fair range of references and some notability in particular re Club and the Guardian/BBC references. Coldupnorth (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:SIGCOV. GNG supersedes WP:NFOOTY, whether the subject meets that guideline is irrelevant when significant coverage about the subject exists. GauchoDude (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG, and I believe he is relevant enough to warrant an article. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While he does not meet WP:NFOOTY, as noted in the comments above there has been the level of coverage about him that would meet GNG. Dunarc (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG though fails WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG as it isn't just routine coverage about him, it's multiple full articles dedicated to him. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep In agreement with comments above, just about covers GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of coverage, and if he really is one of the "60 best young players in the world" his debut will be soon enough.Muur (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2021 (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. Randykitty (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of the largest country subdivisions by area

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

This is the companion article to List of country subdivisions by population which was deleted in July 2021 on the basis of WP:NLIST, i.e. there being no reliable source which covered the explicit topic on a worldwide basis, only stats for each country individually which had been collected together. I see no obvious evidence in the sources here to suggest this article should remain when placed under the same scrutiny. 'Comparable country' is actually interesting to me and I'm sure to many others, but it appears to fall under WP:OR unless refs can be produced stating 'did you know X is as big as Y', preferably for all of these but individually if necessary. But then I'm sure there are sources stating 'did you you know X has a bigger population than Y', but it didn't save that article from deletion. I fail to see why one should survive but not the other. If this article is deemed suitable to remain, I suggest the decision to delete the Populations article is revisited as the topics and sources which would support them are so closely related. Crowsus (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Countries-related deletion discussions. Crowsus (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Crowsus (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Crowsus (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom for NLIST and OR. Canada is big, and most of our provinces and territories are too. Same with Russia and Australia. So? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I question the consensus at the AfD you linked. Per NLIST, There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. (emphasis mine) I think it's quite clear that this list, and List of country subdivisions by population for that matter, are both valuable information sources (8000 pageviews this month, so it seems like some of our readers agree). Elli (talk | contribs) 02:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is unsourced WP:OR - there are no sources verifying that these 50 subdivisions are indeed the largest.----Pontificalibus 08:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what "original research" means. The administrative subdivisions of all countries are a matter of public record, and complete sets of these data can be found anywhere online. There is a finite space to search from, but even disregarding that, we can use common sense: Yakutia, for example, is #1 on this list and has an area of 3 million square kilometers. Basic logic dictates that, per List of countries and dependencies by area, it would be impossible for a subdivision larger than Yakutia to exist in a country smaller than 3 million square kilometers. So it would have to be in one of the seven countries larger than that. It does not seem conceivable to me that some global conspiracy would be capable of concealing the existence of a secret 3 million square kilometer province in Russia, Canada, China, the United States, Brazil, Australia or India. jp×g 14:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If "complete sets of these data can be found anywhere online" it should be easy to cite one or more sources that on their own provide a complete list, which can then be sorted by area and compared with this article to verify it. Then it wouldn't be OR, because we could cite a single source showing there are no missing areas from our list. Otherwise though, it is OR, because we're relying on editors to work out which are the top 50 areas - that's literally original research.----Pontificalibus 15:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The claim that this is OR does not make sense to me, for reasons explained above: this information is all publicly available, there's no kind of secrecy about it, and you can find it quite easily. I don't understand what the "original research" here is supposed to be -- it's not like we got this information by editors looking at Alaska from an airplane and holding a ruler against the window. The area figures of the provinces in question are documented to reliable sources in their respective articles, and these references would be trivial to add to this list. As for NLIST, I am not seeing this here either. It seems to me like this is a clearly defined topic (and not a weird cross-categorization as outlined in NLIST). It is not really a stretch of the imagination to ask what the largest subdivision of a country is, and I'm not aware of any policy or guideline saying that any putative list article writer must be able to demonstrate that some third party RS has compiled an identical list. jp×g 14:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Per OR: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." I could no doubt compile an equally well-documented list of redheaded road racing cyclists by number of victories too. It's the synthesis of a ranking that is the problem. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what original research is. For example, we can freely say that Neil Armstrong was a Boy Scout before he was an astronaut: we can use one source that says he was a Boy Scout in the 1940s, and another source that says he became an astronaut in the 1960s. This is not what WP:SYNTH means: we don't need to cite that the sky is blue. It would only become synthesis if we said "Neil Armstrong's experience as a Boy Scout motivated him to become an astronaut" (without sourcing). There is no such subjectivity, or claim of causality, in the list under discussion. jp×g 01:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SYNTH, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source," and by conclusion, I mean that a ranking like this has any significant worth. Show us such a ranking in the wild, so that WP:NLIST is satisfied. Wasn't one for population, isn't one for area. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There exists no consensus for such an expansive interpretation of WP:SYNTH; "Greenland is larger than Alaska" is not a "conclusion", it is an objective fact derived from ordinary subtraction (one of the explicit exemptions per WP:CALC). There is, furthermore, a lack of consensus for so stringent an interpretation of WP:NLIST. Are you saying, for example, that we cannot have an article at lists of deaths by year unless someone produces an academic paper listing various yearly lists of deaths? I think it would be hard to find a paper of record saying that lists of covered bridges (not covered bridges themselves but rather lists of them) are themselves a notable topic, yet we have a list of lists of covered bridges. Rather than encyclopedic subjects themselves, lists are navigational aids to assist readers in correlating large amounts of information from data that would otherwise be abstruse and difficult to traverse. jp×g 12:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You claim the ranking of these places by area is objective fact that needs no sourcing, but it's not that simple. For example the Republic of China (i.e. Taiwan) views mainland China as an occupied subdivision of itself. We can't leave it to wiki editors to decide what isn't a subdivision, but must refer to one or more third-party lists where the absence of subdivisions not included in our article can be verified.----Pontificalibus 12:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, everything needs sourcing -- the reason it isn't an issue is because we have sources for this stuff. The size of a country and its subdivisions is not a matter of opinion: yes, it's possible that they are counting the fjords differently in Norway and Greenland, but nobody says it's "original research" for our article on Greenland to say how big it is. I do not see a huge issue with disputed areas, either -- your example of Taiwan is included in List of countries and dependencies by area, List of countries by population growth rate, List of countries by GDP (nominal), and List of countries by income equality, et cetera without problem. jp×g 12:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, every argument made in favor of keeping "by population" applies equally well to "by area". So why should we keep one and not the other? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Populations are measured by a variety of methods, which can vary wildly between jurisdictions and go out of date quickly. If I recall correctly, this was a major point raised in the other deletion discussion, which does not apply here. jp×g 12:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or perhaps expand to include a list of all subdivisions, so it becomes a list that users can toggle to rank by area and population on their own.-- Earl Andrew - talk 19:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. So, after the list by population has already been deleted, you want to revive it? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally yes, but failing that, have one article with all of the information in it.-- Earl Andrew - talk 17:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are too many lists comparing countries in Wikipedia. People often forget the fact that some country subdivisions are larger, more populous, and have a higher GDP than a lot of countries in the world. For example, Sakha is bigger than Argentina, the world's eighth largest country; Western Australia is larger than Algeria, the world's tenth largest country; Uttar Pradesh is more populous than Bangladesh, the world's eighth most populous country; and China has eight provinces whose GDP are Top 20 in the world if they were countries.

We need more lists comparing these significant country subdivisions, not less. This article is one of the most basic lists for comparing country subdivisions. Of course we should keep it. Not only should we keep it, we should also revive the population list. I don't know whether we have a list comparing the GDP of significant country subdivisions. If we haven't, we should create one. These three lists are so fundamental that there is no reason not to have them.

As for the sources, since we are only listing the most significant ones, the relevant figures have all been well sourced in each country subdivision's own article. James Ker-Lindsay (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly encyclopaedic list. Certainly not OR. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The individual stats are not OR. It is, however, OR to combine them all in a ranking, just as it would be to have a List of actors by number of adopted children. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except this list is of valid interest, whereas that one is clearly just silly. If you think this list is OR for that reason, then I assume you will go on to nominate List of countries and dependencies by area and many, many more similar lists which are just as much OR by your definition as this one is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Princesses 2009

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

Was nominated previously over 10 years ago but there was no participation and closed as no consensus. There is just no significant coverage to be found. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this reached no. 3 in the UK Compilations chart [10] and has a gold disc [11]... but that's all you can say about it. There doesn't seem any point in having an article on a run-of-the-mill compilation when you can't add any text to it – if this compilation is deemed notable just for the chart position and certification, then we could have literally hundreds of articles about compilation albums with no prose at all, and no likelihood of ever having prose in the future. I don't see this as encyclopedic. Richard3120 (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. Charting doesn't make it notable either, especially when it's a minor chart. SBKSPP (talk)
Delete. Fails WP:NALBUM. Suonii180 (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2021 (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. Per nom.

Thanks for your contributions and assuming good faith with this decision. If you have a problem with it, please bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Zwerling

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Just a person doing her job. The first block uses two profiles to construct the article from X of Y clickbait sites. No secondary coverage. scope_creep^Talk 21:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a biography of her in the Jerusalem Post, although it toes the line between independent and interview. Mlb96 (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. It is primary, and completly non-secondary. Interviews are generally primary unless the person is a celeb, pop star or model, in which case it needs sufficiently detailed. This person is doing their job as a department head. They're is three reference that mention her, but they are no more than profiles; the rest of the article is build on effectively, a kind of workaround. It is a BLP with no secondary sourcing. scope_creep^Talk 11:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on my research and review of the article and its sources, WP:BASIC notability does not appear supported at this time. The JPost source is a start, and the most prominent listicle honors describe her as a 'future leader', but it appears to be WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article without more WP:SECONDARY coverage of her and her accomplishments. Beccaynr (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2021 (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. After two relistings, I'm going to assume good faith with the nominator, User:Govvy, and delete.

Thanks everyone for your contributions and assuming good faith with this decision. If you have a problem with it, please bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meelick GAA

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

I really don't see how this passes general WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT. References are WP:ROUTINE sources and are mostly not secondary sources I saw nothing special in my initial google search to suggest otherwise. Govvy (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meelick GAA Club is a GAA club situated in County Clare, just outside Limerick City. Every conceivable link I could find has been linked correctly to the wikipedia article. Deleting the article does not delete the GAA Club. If you want further proof it exists please visit the club. It's full postal is Meelick GAA Club, Meelick GAA Clubhouse, Kyleavoher, Meelick, Co Clare, Ireland, V94VH28. It's GPS co-ordinates are 52.6997241N, 08.6550004W — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muggins91 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:09, 17 November 2021 (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 11:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kenner (magician)

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

The subject has very little WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, not nearly enough to pass WP:GNG. Per WP:ENTERTAINER, sources do not show "significant roles in films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions," nor do the sources show that the subject has "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." The minimal content and coverage that exists in this article does not make the subject notable for a Wikipedia article. ––FormalDude talk 01:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 01:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 01:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 01:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also does not pass WP:AUTHOR for a single book, and does not inherit notability for his production job. LizardJr8 (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of ASTM International standards

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

This massive list is just a copy-paste of the material at the copyrighted [12]. I'm not sure if this is really a copy-vio, but I don't think it's notable or encyclopedic to list these this way. Reywas92^Talk 20:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Adding subarticles.[reply]

List of ASTM International standards (D)
List of ASTM International standards (E)
List of ASTM International standards (F)

Reywas92^Talk 05:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTMIRROR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTHOWTO, and probably several others. All of this content is at the ASTM website and there is nothing added in the article. LizardJr8 (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTDATABASE. Avilich (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, Alex-h (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTDIRECTORY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Jolly (academic)

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

The article is a WP:BLP. I attempted first to salvage this by removing some of the worst WP:PUFFERY, but quickly realized that if I were to do so and remove all unreferenced claims, there would be practically nothing left in the article. The only references appear to be press releases/staff pages from institutions he has been at (so not independent from him) with a single exception in terms of an article published by "NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence" which I can't figure out the reliability and independence of. The only "news article" I can find about the person is this The Guardian blog post (see italics below first image stating "this blog"). This is far from "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". I do acknowledge that my attempts to find further articles from Google News etc. were frustrated by the seemingly more prominent politician of the same name, so it's not impossible I might have missed something. While Jolly appears to have held several academic positions, I don't think any of these are enough to fulfill WP:ACADEMIC. Ljleppan (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: I also tried a number of searches (including the Rainbow in the Dark doctrine) to see if there was a possibility of satisfying WP:ACADEMIC but couldn't find anything of substance. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this source has sigcov of Jolly (and states that his work is important/influential) but I'm not sure it's independent. (t · c) buidhe 03:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really trust the tone of that source in general, but even that source talks almost as much about his non-academic work. And this one cited on his page by his own college at Cambridge, which would have every reason to talk up his academic achievements, talks mostly about what he's done in a non-academic capacity: https://www.clarealumni.com/file/ClareNews_Edition31.pdf (pg. 8). He certainly doesn't pass WP:Academic. -- asilvering (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not convinced meets WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, or even WP:GNG. Happy to be proved wrong though, if someone can find some independant reviews of his works or similar. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looking at contributions to this page and related ones by Special:Contributions/Manorial, it looks there might have been a bit of puffery going on. I excised a whole section of speculation (with some questionable sourcing) from the MI7 article relating to Jolly. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article rang my alarm bells because of the quantity of embedded external links, which would need to be cleaned out if it were kept. The sources are dreadful, the text gave the impression of someone important enough to have good sources, but when I Googled and struggled to find anything independent. I didn't think he passed NPROF as, although he's held a lot of academic positions, none leapt out as super-senior. He's clearly a solid committee-member, and been on loads of think-tanks, but I can't assess the notability of think-tanks, and I'm no judge of military matters, so I didn't feel confident to bring the article here myself. The article also suffers from SPA-editing. But I agree with Ljleppan (talk · contribs); by the time we've cleaned the article of what shouldn't be in it, there's not going to be anything left. At the moment, I can't see any alternative to delete. But if anyone can find some sourcing, I'd be happy to change my mind. Elemimele (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Lazy K

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

Non notable disc jockey who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search which can easily be verified shows her mentioned only in user generated and self published sources. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Undecided) - Contrary to what the nominator said, one of the three sources in the article is Rolling Stone which is absolutely not "unreliable", and the DJ was the primary interview subject for that story. The article uses a citation from The Source in which the DJ is mentioned briefly, that is also a reliable source; while the article misses another placement from The Source in which the DJ is fully profiled: [13]. Whether or not those add up to significant coverage is the correct topic of this debate, and "unreliable" is a red herring. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520, I have a script that shows unreliable sources according to RSP & it expressly tagged that source as blatant unreliable, I was dazed yesterday when the script told me the source was unreliable, Perhaps a malfunction of the tool, in any case as you know all to well as one who has once carried the NPR perm, one good source is to small & doesn’t do anything to substantiate nor prove notability. An interview as you well know isn’t independent of the subject this can’t be considered reliable. I’m not sure what your argument is here but if you are insinuating that the subject of the is somewhat notable I believe you are more than welcome to show what criterion from WP:MUSICBIO they meet or show sources that prove them notability. Celestina007 (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my vote was Undecided on notability, and I did not "insinuate" anything. I stated in plain language that the reasoning in the nomination is faulty. Blaming a script is an unconvincing substitute for a WP:BEFORE search. At least change the reasoning in the nomination. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520, A before came back with nothing cogent & I am not blaming the script per se, what I said or at least I’m trying to say is a script called the source unreliable, which was rather puzzling, and a before search showed nothing cogent. Furthermore an undecided !vote for a non notable musician who meets no criterion from MUSICBIO nor do they satisfy GNG is indicative of contemplation & how you are contemplating a clear case of non notability is, for a lack of better word baffling. I have although changed the non rationale. Celestina007 (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - My argument with the nominator about the rationale is distracting for everyone else, but "...only in user generated and self published sources" is still in the nomination and is still wrong. The nominator missed a reliable source that was already cited in the article, and apparently still hasn't read it after it was pointed out. In the Rolling Stone article the DJ was interviewed as a subject matter expert and prominent member of a genre, so it is not one of those softball profiles. She has also been noted several times in The Source for backing famous people. Alas, I don't think that quite adds up to the significant coverage required for notability, but she comes kind of close. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of the nomination, I don't see anything here that holds up strong enough for me to be convinced she meets WP:GNG via WP:SIGCOV. As DOOMSDAYER has pointed out - it doesn't quite add up. Delighted if the subject is mentioned in other articles covering subjects she's a SME on, but, at this point, I don't see how she qualifies for her own Wikipedia article. Missvain (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muskaan Bamne

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. She has had minor roles in TV shows. Princepratap1234 (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only minor roles, not enough for WP:NACTOR Ravensfire (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Might become notable in future. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NACTOR as the subject did not get any major roles yet. Fails WP:ANYBIO too. Venkat TL (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Paul

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Current mayor of Lakewood, Colorado, population 155k. This is a position where the officeholder could be notable, but there must be substantial coverage of the subject to show more than "they exist." --Enos733 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lakewood CO is certainly large enough that a substantive and well-sourced article about a mayor could be kept, but mayors don't get an automatic notability freebie just for existing as mayors. The notability test for a mayor is not passed just by writing that he exists and citing a tiny smattering of local coverage to verify that existence — it requires you to write a substantive article about the significance of his mayoralty, by delving into and sourcing specific things he did in the mayor's chair, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A mayor of a city is an important position to have a Wikipedia page. He has an in-depth article here and I found many many mentions of him in Google news, which should mean something for his overall popularity. Jaxarnolds (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors are not automatically given Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and counting raw Google hits isn't a helpful gauge of notability — just because a source has his name in it doesn't automatically make it a notability-building source if it isn't about him in any non-trivial way. It takes a lot more than just one article about him in the local newspaper to get a mayor over the bar, especially if all the rest of the sourcing in the article is non-notability-supporting primary source junk. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt mean to say they are automatically acceptable, but based on the amount of news, he seems notable enough to keep. Jaxarnolds (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're kind of missing the point. It's not enough to just say "there are Google News hits, so keep" — you still have to show some specific examples of what you consider to be notability-building coverage so that we can evaluate whether it's really as good as you claim. The bar for inclusion of mayors is considerably higher than just "some local news coverage in his own city's local media exists", so just saying that media hits exist isn't enough: the hits have to evince a reason why he should be seen as significantly more special than most other mayors, not just verify that he exists, before they make a mayor notable for being a mayor. Bearcat (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaptain

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable Nigerian musician that fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO & in general lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus WP:GNG isn’t met either. A before search did show this which is a pre packaged sponsored post and I’m puzzled as to why this reliable source failed to mention this expressly. Celestina007 (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More spam from an editor who has produced a lot of it. – Athaenara ✉ 20:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I find nothing to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 12:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable musician. -Xclusivzik (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adon, Wyoming

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

All evidence is that this is the Adon Ranch: the address given for Adon Ranch Productions lands squarely on this spot, and someone on Google has also tagged it with "Adlon Ranch Quarter Horses" (sic). And well, from the air it looks like a ranch. Topos don't go back very far, and they show more or less what's there now; searching finds a lot of routine government hits because of an oil field and because Adon is the topo quad name, but noting comes up suggesting this was ever a town or even a post office. Mangoe (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sigh, WP:GNIS spam, per my comment at Teckla, Wyoming. FOARP (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Suonii180 (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2021 (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. Fenix down (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Efstathiou

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

Essentially an amateur footballer who happened to play 2 games of professional football over 5 years ago with his recent career showing no signs of being anywhere near the professional level. Clear consensus that this is, at best, a weak presumption of WP:GNG. Searches in Google News and a Greek-language search came back with practically nothing on him (just namesakes; people more notable/famous than him). The only RS coverage I can find is a passing mention in Balla and another in Kerkida, neither of which are even close to SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akshaya Gurav

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

WP:ACTOR, WP:GNG, WP:ADVERT, Created by blocked sock. Promotional and no WP:SIGCOV. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 18:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 18:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 18:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The person fails WP:NACTOR as he did not get any major roles yet. Fails WP:ANYBIO too. Venkat TL (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: She is a non notable actress and IMDb is not a reliable source and other citied sources are fails to show notability. Fails WP:NACTOR Nitesh003 (TALK) 07:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anagha Bhosale

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. She has had minor roles in TV shows and some music videos. Princepratap1234 (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete it. It consumes much time to publish an article. And she was main lead in DADAMJ and main parallel female lead opposite Paras Kalnawat in Anupamaa. Pri2000 (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2021(UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete fails NACTOR as it is right now, a few of the refs look promotional, but I have a feeling that an expert could expand the article to the point where it could meet muster. Maybe I'm wrong. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR as the subject did not get any major roles yet. Fails WP:ANYBIO too. Venkat TL (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2021 (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. Fenix down (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mesaraonye Ikechukwu Samuel

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

Essentially an unsourced BLP created by an SPA tagged for notability since 2017. No hits in ProQuest, nothing of value in Google or DuckDuckGo. Wikipedia mirrors and nothing else. Promotional article; probably an autobiography; doesn't meet WP:GNG on the basis of the searches that I've attempted so we should delete. Searches have been attempted both with and without the middle name. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence to prove he played for Kaduna United, can't find any reliable source, not even in Kaduna United line up around those years it claimed, fails NFOOTBALL, by mile. Oloriebi 14:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Without prejudice to change vote to Keep if significant coverage is later found. For my search, I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV for the subject, noting that someone with searching skills for African sources might uncover things I was unable to. GauchoDude (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2021 (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. Fenix down (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samsudin Ibrahim

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

Tagged for notability since it was created. Non-notable person who does not meet WP:GNG. Database profile pages do nothing to support notability. This Goal.com coverage of a suspension is sorely lacking in depth and falls short of SIGCOV requirements. No decent coverage found in a Malaysian search or in Google News. Aside from what is already cited, I found nothing better than an empty GSA profile. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chikon Ali

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

Fails WP:GNG, A non-notable supporting actor having no significant alocades. Lonely Explorer (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and fails WP:NACTOR also. LizardJr8 (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn per improvements made/better results than I'd been able to ID. Thanks all Star Mississippi 03:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NorthStar

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

PROD declined (courtesy @Curbon7: on the grounds that it needs a deeper dive. Unfortunately, my BEFORE showed only run of the mill churnalism, not independent nor in depth to meet WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 13:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 13:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 13:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 13:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some reference. To find references, I searched on Northstar Battery and Northstar Batteries, as there are several other companies with Northstar as part of their name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to improvements by Eastmain. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per improvements made. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2021 (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)} 16:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Ouze Merham interview of Ariel Sharon

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

Fails WP:N as there are no secondary sources covering this. Two non reliable sources have claimed that this is a fake quote, no original has ever been found, but the existence of the interview whether or not it is real is simply not notable as there are no reliable secondary sources discussing whether or not it even happened. nableezy - 16:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 16:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. nableezy - 16:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 16:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. nableezy - 16:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 16:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article started life as a claim that the "interview" was misquoted from a book of Amos Oz, but that isn't true. It should have been deleted as soon as that became clear, but since then the primary function of the article has been as an Attack page. There are zillions of dubious quotations going around out there, and this one is neither notable nor particularly prevalent. Zero^talk 04:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above.The sources claim it to be a fake quote.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2021 (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)} 16:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel H. Kim

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in multiple sources - only one source is cited for the article. Tagged for lacking additional sources since 2011. Article subject requests deletion (VRT Ticket 2021111510010276). Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject certainly seems to have the relative obscurity to make such a request reasonable. Ravenswing 20:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Significant coverage only in the NHL article already cited. All other sources encountered mention him in passing because he was the hockey team's spokesperson and interpreter. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough evidence of significant coverage to overcome the subject's request. Rlendog (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2021 (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. Withdrawn by nom (me). Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acta Botanica Islandica

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator with reason "nope". PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Withdrawn. Several of the points brought forward below are less than convincing. However, listing in Biological Abstracts and Biosis (inexplicably missed by MIAR), together with the two reviews in JSTOR push this over the bar, barely. As there are no other "delete" !votes, I am withdrawing this nom. --Randykitty (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NJournals is an essay, not a policy (and in any case argues that if the article is not kept, it should be moved to be about the publishing society, not deleted). This reputable journal was the national-level publication on an important scientific discipline, and is cited in numerous Wikipedia articles, on this and sister projects. It is the journal of first publication for multiple taxon names. It is not clear why the nominator mistakenly believes that the European Ocean Biodiversity Information System, the European node of the Ocean Biodiversity Information System, itself adopted as a project under UNESCO, is not an independent source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: none of the above is a policy-based argument. If you don't want to use NJournals (which is designed to make it easier for journals), fine, then we get to GNG. Eurobis basically only lists the journal title, Agris is simply a library record and doesn't give much more info. They may be independent, but you need a lot of fantasy to regard these as "in-depth sources" that pass GNG (or any other guideline you may want to apply). --Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: as a totally irrelevant aside: clicking on "link" above shows that "numerous" equals 11 25 (including non-linked instances). Of course, had it been 25,000, it still would not mean anything for notability. What happens on sister projects is also irrelevant here. Just smoke and mirrors. --Randykitty (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - You misrepresent what say ("numerous Wikipedia articles, on this and sister projects"), egregiously. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Criterion 1 "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area" Yes, in the field if Icelandic botany, it was. Criterion 2 "The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources." Yes, since the journal includes the first description of many new species, all work in other journals on those species will follow a citation-trail back to this journal. Criterion 3 "The journal is historically important in its subject area." again, in the limited subject area of Icelandic botany, it is. So it passes on all three criteria when only one would have been enough. We have to be a bit careful about "frequently" (Icelandic botany is of limited interest to an average shopper in an English-speaking street; the subject area means that citations won't be as frequent as they would in medicine; but the journal should be considered in the context of its field, not out of context). We also have to be careful of "is"; the guidelines should include "was", since a journal that was notable in its day remains notable after it ceases to exist. This is an ex-journal, long since pining for the Fjords, so it's not surprising that it's not well-covered by modern databases. Elemimele (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question "...considered by reliable sources...": which reliable sources???? "...frequently cited...": GScholar gives a smattering of citations to some articles, but nothing that I would consider "frequently". "...historically important...": any sources for this apart from your own judgment? "...not well-covered by modern databases...": that's a strong point arguing against notability => no sources, no article. --Randykitty (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: fair questions. Do you have access to Webofscience? Since Acta Botanica Islandica is included in WoS, it's possible to check who's cited it there. I looked at the journal itself, which can be found at the Icelandic Institute of Natural History [14], and picked a few articles more-or-less at random. Some, like Caram and Jonsson "Nouvel inventaire des algues marines de l'Islande" (1972) are incorrectly entered into WoS as merely "Acta Bot", but the article is clearly in this journal and has been cited 31 times, by such journals as Botany, Eur. J. Phycology, Nordic Journal of Botany, Journal of Phycology etc.; i.e. not Nature, but reasonably solid stuff at the level you'd expect for a rather niche botanical journal. Note that the title is in French; this journal has published in a hotch-potch of languages, which really doesn't help with citation searching. I searched a few other articles too; mostly low citation rates, but in solid places (e.g. Hallgrimsson 1987, cited only twice in Mycological Progress and Persoonia, Munda 2004 cited twice in Ecology and Evolution). We're not talking top-level stuff here, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it. This is admittedly a minor journal in a niche area, because Iceland is a niche area, and Botany is, to most people, a niche subject. As for modern databases, remember modern databases are there to serve modern science to modern scientists; they're not there to provide a historical record of the foundations on which modern science was built (and curation of the addition of old papers to modern databases is very patchy). Back in the days of Acta Botanica Islandica, the primary way to find out information was to go down to the library a few times a week, and pick up real paper journals off the shelf and read them. Science Citation Index was a scary thing that you used in desperation to make sure that you hadn't missed something obscure before submitting your PhD thesis, very cutting edge! We shouldn't judge old journals by 2021 standards. We have a duty to provide some sort of historical record of the world even pre-1990. It was never a huge journal, but it was a decent brick in the wall of human knowledge. If you suppress enough bricks, no one can see the wall any more. Elemimele (talk) 09:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Further reliable sources have been added to the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps we are being too selective here and WP:NJOURNALS should be expanded to cover journals like this one, as long as predatory journals can be kept out. . This page says it is in Biological Abstracts. If you search for other names beginning with Acta botanica, you may find some other journals worth listing such as Acta botanica Silesiaca (ISSN 1895-5738) from Poland or Acta botánica mexicana from Mexico. Acta Botanica Fennica from Finland and apparently listed in Scopus https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q15756567 also looks interesting. Perhaps discussions about expanding the notability criteria should take place at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also listed in International Plant Names Index at https://www.ipni.org/p/1638-2 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:27, 18 November 2021 (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. note to Quinnbradlee, I will temporarily restore a copy to your user space if you haven't saved the source. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bradlee family

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

Lacks coverage in reliable sources i.e. fails WP:GNG and is probably based on original research by the author. It is also a violation of WP:NOTGENEALOGY. SmartSE (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete this page. I will work on it. One of your pages says not to put too many sources up before you publish it, so that's what I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinnbradlee (talk • contribs) 15:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quinnbradlee: Which page? That makes no sense. You want to include as many sources as you can or else notability won't be seen. in the topic. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just a somewhat normal, non-notable family tree. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately delete -- This is largely a not notable family. However, it should be left up long enough for Quinnbradlee to make a copy for his (or her) own use and subsequent publication in a more suitable forum. This may be appropriate to be published in a family history magazine or webpage, but does not belong in Wikipedia. Much of the early section of the article comes close to fantasy, which WP calls original research. Constable is not an occupation but a manorial office, which a person would have done part-time and probably without pay. I doubt it was a hereditary office. "Constable of England" sounds like a military office under the crown, but the text does not support that. Halifax was an enormous manor. It is likely to have been administered as a large number of townships. The constable may have been responsible for keeping order and collecting taxes in his township. The office would be an essentially local one and completely non-notable. Origins para 1 is pure fantasy: a few of the facts may be true, but they way in which they are linked is not. The attempt to link to Noah is certainly a medieval invention. How reliable the Irish genealogies are nobody knows: they are regarded as legendary. Dolfin of Carlisle is real, but not necessarily the ancestor of those subsequently named. There is then a long gap in the genealogy, which suggests that no link is established. De Bradley (however spelt) means of Bradley, implying a connection with a place of that name. Spellings were not fixed, so that no one "changed" the spelling of their name: the scribe wrote what he heard. A little later dates are given as 1450 and 1475. These are almost certainly approximate dates, estimated on the basis that a generation was 25 years: there was no registration of baptisms until 1539, so that such estimates are the best one can get and should always be qualified with "about" or c. Need I go on? Peterkingiron (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Userification is fine for now if cleanup can be done, but other users have made a good point - it is unlikely that notability can be established without significant work, if ever. Plus a lot of OR in here too. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2021 (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. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darius II of Media Atropatene

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

An odd case of a seemingly non-existent person. Apparently, from what can be gathered from the very unreliable sources here, an informal debate took place during the 1990s between some amateur genealogists concerning the identity of the father of Vonones II and Artabanus II, kings of Parthia. Christian Settipani once identified him as "Darius", the subject of the article and nomination, who is here misleadingly called "Darius II" (there was no king of that name). However, by 1998, the same author had admitted that this was no more than a placeholder name resting on no authority whatsoever. This is revealed by an email which the article cites as a source.

In other words, the genealogist who originally conceived "Darius II" already had long disavowed his historicity before this article was created (see the original revision here, where it is claimed that "Darius II" was the father of the two Parthian kings; the claim has been since removed). It goes without saying that no reliable sources attest any "Darius II of Media Atropatene". The article's contents are ultimately traceable to what seem to be forum posts and private correspondence.

Pinging Agricolae who brought this to my attention. Avilich (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even an actual person, let alone a notable one. Just invented to connect between documented people speculated to have been related through an unknown intermediate generation, and assigned a name simply because it was the type of name the associated families were fond of using. All sources are non-WP:RS. Agricolae (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find anything to satisfy WP:V. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leave a short article giving the information in the nom (with sources). Once an idea is published (even if it is wrong and rescinded), the idea has legs and needs to have a placeholder explaining why the content is now regarded as a fantasy. If this is not done, his alleged existence (though incorrect) will rear its ugly head again. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think anything from the internet or a private email which a Wikipedia editor misinterpreted should be broadcasted as truth, WP:V and WP:RS be damned, then you're not serious. Avilich (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a case of the content 'now regarded as fantasy' - that is a misunderstanding of the situation. From the time of conception it was never anything more than a convenient placeholder and not a real person. Something along the lines of "These two men appear to have been brothers so we will hypothesize a common father for them, who we will call 'Darius' because it is more convenient to be able to call him something and this was a name used within the extended family." Such a person wouldn't qualify for an article, even a short stub, if they were actually real, let alone a person originally conjured into existence by a self-publishing author just to fill in a blank space in a pedigree. No, not every datum that has ever appeared in a self-published book need have a Wikipedia entry just in case someone stumbles across it and comes looking. Agricolae (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2021 (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 11:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lipchanskiy Andrey

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

Has contested only 4 non-significant matches; fails WP:MMABIO. Htanaungg (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously fails WP:MMABIO. 49.228.99.170 (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2021 (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 Lock Haven Bald Eagles football. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Lock Haven Bald Eagles football team

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

This article is not notable enough for a standalone article, per WP:NSEASONS: "A season including a post-season appearance (or, if there is no post-season competition, a high final ranking) in the top collegiate level is often notable.". Lock Haven finished the season 2-9 in a Division II conference, with no postseason appearance, so it doesn't meet criteria for it's own article space. I'm sure articles can be found that cover particular games for this particular season, but that doesn't rise to level of significant coverage. At the least, this article's information should be merged to the PSAC page, or to the Lock Haven Bald Eagles page. Spf121188 (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2021 (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/2021 November 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails both WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Lock Haven Bald Eagles football team. Like the 2021 team, this is another "less than run-of-the-mill" season for a fourth-tier team. There is currently zero WP:SIGCOV in the article, and my searches did not uncover the type of in-depth coverage that persuades me that a stand-alone article is appropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not finding enough coverage in my search to satisfy GNG. Also, if the 2021 article is non-notable as well, would a merge to a page titled, e.g. Lock Haven Bald Eagles football, 2017–2021 work? Pinging @Cbl62: and @Spf121188: to see their thoughts. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: I'm inclined to be somewhat aggressive in saying "no" to these types of articles. The program is not even notable enough for someone to have bothered creating a parent article on Lock Haven Bald Eagles football (as of now, it's just a redirect). If there are particularly important moments in the program's history, that's where such moments would best be collected. Cbl62 (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with Cbl62 with regards to a page with multiple seasons. I don't see enough notability with this program to create any pages regarding individual seasons, unless they do make it to the DII playoffs for multiple seasons, but even then should be merged to their parent athletics page, to give that article it's own substance, as Cbl62 correctly states that the parent page for it's football program also isn't noteworthy enough for it's own page, in my opinion. Spf121188 (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I may not have expressed my thoughts well. I'm not saying that a parent article on Lock Haven Bald Eagles football wouldn't pass muster. Such a high level article on the program as a whole "probably" would be fine and could be an appropriate repository to record highlights from the program's history. Cbl62 (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the order in which the independent, loosely confederated, bottom-up activity of a myriad of Wikipedia editors creates articles related to a large subject is not necessarily evidence of relative notability within that subject area. It's often more a product of personal interest and happenstance. The Lock Haven Bald Eagles football program is an NCAA Division II program. We have lots of articles on NCAA Division II football programs and those of lower levels, NCAA Division III and NAIA. There has long existed a fairly substantive article about IUP Crimson Hawks football, a conference mate of Lock Haven. We should have an article for Lock Haven Bald Eagles football. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note I can understand Jweiss11's point of view here. It should also be noted that IUP has won the PSAC, (or whatever the conference was named at each given instance,) six times. I'm unsure of how many times Lock Haven has won their respective conference (given that they were at one time, I believe an FCS program.) If a page for Lock Haven's football program is created, I think the season that this particular page is addressing could easily be merged into it. Just my thought. Spf121188 (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created a draft article for the Lock Haven football program here and this season could be redirected/merged there when finished. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Beanie. Cbl62 (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lock Haven Bald Eagles football given that article now exists and WP:NSEASONS explicitly supports redirection as an alternative to deletion in such cases. Smartyllama (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete/merge/redirect seems to make the most sense.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2021 (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 William, Count of Sully#Marriage. Daniel (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth of Sully

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

No evidence of notability. Only passing mentions, apparently died young (21 years old?) and had little time to make an impact. Could be redirected to her father. Fram (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Elizabeth is notable. The lady was an Abbess of important abbey. The fact Elizabeth was a noblewoman shouldn't make her notable; as an abbess, Elizabeth had notability. It should be noted that deleting articles about women can't help gender bias on Wikipedia. If others desire deletion, I suggest redirecting the article to this.—Miha (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You helpfully link to the GNG. It doesn't indicate at all that being an abbess is an indication of notability. Keeping articles about women simply because they are women is a terrible idea. As for your final suggestion, that's what I did but which you reverted... Fram (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know what I did (in good faith). "Keeping articles about women simply because they are women is a terrible idea." Indeed—just like creating the article because of Elizabeth's parents, who were nobles. I created the article solely Elizabeth was given a position in the abbey; I didnʻt create article about Elizabethʻs brother Raoul, a monk, not an Abbot. To end the game: Iʻll redirect.

Redirect is the right move, and as it has already been done by article creator, an early close is probably in order. Typed a longer response but it has been edit conflicted and seems pointless now. Abbesses aren't inherently notable (neither are abbots). Agricolae (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really acceptable while an AfD is in progress. I've reverted the redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, not really on, but nonetheless we have a newly-created and barely visited page with only one substantive editor, and even them not willing to defend retention. Agricolae (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or slight merge) to William, Count of Sully, also the article on her mother Agnes of Sully, who is equally NN. However the target article will need a link to Abbey of Sainte-Trinité, Caen, where there ought to be a list of abbesses. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree on Agnes of Sully being NN. (I just did the Abbey of Sainte-Trinité, Caen link on the target - no point in waiting for close for something inconsequential. Agricolae (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I believe the article, improved a bit by a user who added the source, should be kept. Keep.—Miha (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which source established any notability? Seem like very short mentions in genealogies. Fram (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the third and fourth note don't even mention Elisabeth, so it should be the first or the second? In the second source, there is one sentence about Elisabeth, that's it. And in the first source, she doesn't even get a sentence, just a small branch in a family tree. Fram (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 'improvement' was addition of a source that simply gave her name, the fact that she was Abbess, and her death date. That is nowhere near the 'substantial coverage' required by WP:GNG. Agricolae (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know, Agricolae.What to do, Fram? Will we keep?—Miha (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to William, Count of Sully#Marriage per WP:PAGEDECIDE. The target will benefit by the addition of the reference for her title and death date. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2021 (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 11:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SOSAD Ireland

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

Non-notable organization. WP:BEFORE yields only social media accounts and irrelevant content. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Not convinced that WP:NGO or WP:SIGCOV is met. In terms of WP:NGO, while the charity's operations do appear to be "national in scale", the scope is limited. In terms of WP:SIGCOV, coverage in national news outlets is limited. While a search in the Irish Times returns only a few mentions, in each case the subject is not the primary topic of the news story. And, while a search in the Independent News & Media (INM) stable of papers returns more than a few mentions, in each case the coverage (in "local notes" or "district news" sections of INM's regional papers) are routine mentions of events organised by the charity. Rather than in-depth coverage about the charity/subject itself. I may be missing something, but I'm not sure how this charity is any more notable than any of the 10,000 other charities registered in Ireland. (Each of which isn't automatically notable.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing is primary and I cannot find anything out there that would improve it. LizardJr8 (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking indepth third party coverage as per WP:ORGDEPTH. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2021 (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. Deleting based on the first AfD and second AfD's nomination. No evidence presented that the subject merits inclusion.

Thanks everyone for your contributions and assuming good faith with this decision. If you have a problem with it, please bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastián Izquierdo

AfDs for this article:

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

I am renominating this article for deletion, basically for the same reason: this person is not notable and should not have a Wikipedia article. I also have to note that @Dentren: agreed with my position in the sense that the article had a good deal of references, but they are all minimal or don't even mention them. I even made an assessment of some references in the previous nomination. I also have to note that this article was deleted on the Spanish Wikipedia where there was unanimous consensus that the subject is non notable. Bedivere (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bedivere (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Albeit an interesting personality Izquierdo is a fringe political figure with marginal coverage in WP:RS. I do think could have some mention in an article like Far-right politics in Chile. Dentren | ^Talk 22:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thoroughly obnoxious though he may be, I don't think one can say he is not notable. He is a lot better known than many of the obscure people featured on Wikipedia. Athel cb (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Because "many" "obscure people" are featured on Wikipedia is not a valid reason to keep this article on such a non-notable individual. Please elaborate your reason: how is Izquierdo notable? --Bedivere (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 17 November 2021 (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. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wannigan Days

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

Borderline, would like the community's opinion on this one. Appears to only have 2 WP:GNG passing sources: [15] and [16]. In my opinion, need one more to demonstrate notability. [17] looks based on a press release, no independent analysis. WP:NCORP may or may not apply. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I've done a light search for sources, and haven't found any outside of what has been previously mentioned. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG currently, although with 1 or 2 more good sources found, it would. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 17 November 2021 (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 Koch Marshall Trio. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Lee Marshall

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 12:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Koch Marshall Trio. Fails GNG/N as a standalone BLP. Atsme 💬 📧 13:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Koch Marshall Trio, he fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Koch Marshall Trio per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2021 (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 Grand Grimoire. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifuge Rofocale

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

I have serious concerns about this article (it was recently AfD on pl wiki as a possible WP:HOAX). I am not sure if this topic is a hoax (actually, after my BEFORE, I don't think it is), but first, tit likely doesn't meet WP:GNG, and second, the current article does not seem to cite any RS, and even has a section on "modern demonology"... so it probably warrants a WP:TNT. I did find one ref that seems possibly reliable and in-depth, The Encyclopedia of Demons and Demonology by Rosemary Guiley published by Infobase Publishing. IP seems reliable, but the author - less so (according to our article, she was a " a certified hypnotist" and a paranormal topics researcher, and I have serious concerns about "encyclodias" written by authors with such a background. All other sources about this demon are either less reliable, don't meet SIGCOV o both. As pretty much all sources agree this demon was first mentioned (invented...) in the Grand Grimoire and there are few if any sources mentioning them later in any major capacity, perhaps a SOFTDELETE and redirect to that work would be the best option here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grand Grimoire. Anything worth merging would be a few properly sourced entries under the "popular culture" heading, which Grand Grimoire also has. Haleth (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grand Grimoire - I own the Guiley book, as well as another, similar kind of book by Michelle Belanger, another expert on the fringe topics of the occult/paranormal. Both pretty much state the same information as this demon was solely described in the singular source of the Grand Grimoire. So, its not a hoax (at least not in the Wikipedia sense - obviously the author of the Grand Grimoire initially made it up), but also not really a topic that needs to be WP:SPLIT from the article on the book where he was invented. Rorshacma (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grand Grimoire. Not a hoax, but a literary invention. We normally merge article on characters in imagined universes (Plays, films, books, etc.) back to a main article. Though this is something much older (abut 300 years old) we should apply the same rule. Most "in popular culture" sections were deleted many years ago as trivia, so that preservation is not needed. The etymology might be merged back to the main article, but I doubt that is necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grand Grimoire per above. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2021 (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.

Huntress (comics)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is one of those blown up disambig pages - "The Huntress is the name of several fictional characters appearing in comic books published by DC Comics", each of which at the moment has her own page (Paula Brooks, Huntress (Helena Wayne), and Huntress (Helena Bertinelli)). Our current article has no section on reception or such, just a plot summary for each of the three Huntresses, and as such it seems to fail WP:GNG. BEFORE failed to reveal anything that's about Huntresses in general (and goes beyond a plot summary). Granted, neither of three Huntress articles is particularly good, and maybe we should just merge all three of them here - but otherwise, this needs to go (or rather, be converted into a regular WP:DISAMBIG; no need to delete history - could be useful if one we decide to merge the said three articles - so I'd suggest just SOFTDELETE by converting this one to disambig without the need to use any admin-level tools). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is sourced and has several citations concerning the creation and use of the relevant characters. Dimadick (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which don't need to be WP:SYNTHed into this disambig. No citation discusses the creation, use and significance (to literary history, popular culture, or comics) of all three Huntresses, does it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a misguided nomination and does not follow Wikipedia's deletion policy, and neither is what I believe to be an attempt to use AfD as a one-stop outlet to resolve an article's content issues. The longstanding community consensus is that a merge and redirect is a valid compromise or AfD outcome, but should not be the end goal of an AfD nomination. A number of content issues were raised about the article and its related articles, but no convincing argument is made that the Huntress DC comic book character as a topic is non-notable to be covered on Wikipedia due to a dearth of coverage, especially when there are subtopic pages about two versions of the Huntress character in existence, which means this page is clearly a parent article. If the nominator's concern is about excessive plot summaries in this page and whether there should have been multiple spinout Huntress comic character articles in the first place, a better solution would be to start a discussion on a Wikiproject like Wikiproject Comics, to get consensus for a proposal to either merge the other sub-articles back into Huntress (comics) as the parent article (which I am not opposed to), or trim the article's contents down to a disambugation listing. As it stands, it is no different then a hypothetical AfD for say, Robin (character), which I predict would be snow-kept before the digging for sources even begin. Haleth (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robin would be plausibly kept because it has a reception section which makes a plausible case for notability. This aticle has no such thing. Plot summaries are on par with original research, and so don't have the same need for preserving/merging as information derived from secondary sources. Also, enough with that double standard by which deletionists are required to go through pointless procedural exercises while creators are allowed to operate without any editorial oversight when conceiving these wikia-tier articles. Avilich (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich: Question on a detail: Why do you think "Plot summaries are on par with original research"? Original research should be avoided, plot summaries are a wanted part of Wikipedia (albeit not sufficient to sustain an article on their own, which may be a problem here, but I think a fixable one). Daranios (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And a basic point: I think there is a good reason why Wikpedia's guidelines set a higher hurdle for deletion than creation of articles, if you will a double standard. If we were to require the creation of "good" articles from the get-go, rather than allowing for incremental improvement, we would in my opinion have very, very much fewer articles. And in the end also very much fewer good articles. Wikipedia is a very successful project, but it is a project of volunteers. So we are here to determine if this article can be improved. And, if it can, it should be improved, by whoever wants to. Maybe by whoever is most dissatisfied with the current state? Daranios (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I compare plot details to OR because the sourcing standards for those are lower, with editors being allowed to extract information from the primary source directly. I of course understand that Wikipedia is the result of incremental efforts, but this only means that an article doesn't need to be 100% ready at conception, not that encyclopedic viability should be ignored at that moment. The guideline you yourself cite quite explicitly says, "Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary". To expect the nominator to drag himself through other places before coming here, while the creator couldn't even take the time to find some third-party coverage, is unreasonably disproportionate by any standard; besides, articles routinely get improved through AfD. Avilich (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich: Good point, I was not aware of that exact phrasing. But three buts: This article does currently not only have plot summary, but also publication information/history + info on the creators. Then, as I've described, I think there should be no decision about this article without or before looking at its three subtopics. And lastly, yes "articles routinely get improved through AfD", but that's exactly the opposite of how it should be. If there are surmountable problems, they should be flagged (I know that that does not always help, but well, it's a volunteer project), or better, fixed by the one detecting it (or being annoyed by it).

As for the other point, sure, sourcing standards for plot summary may be lower, but it's not "worthless" information. It is a wanted part of an article about a fictional topic, while WP:OR is unwanted in general. Daranios (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time being. I am not quite sure how best to go about that one. In my view the only way a deletion as an outcome would make sense were if taking all three comic book characters together would still fail WP:GNG. So to discuss this, we would need to check for secondary sources for the collective topic as well as all three individual ones. Piotrus, if I understand correctly, when you did the WP:BEFORE search, you only had the overall topic in mind?

If all three characters individually would turn out to be notable, then the idea to transform this into a short disambiguation page would make sense to me. But even in that case, I think there is material here that is not present in the articles about the individual characters which should be saved by merging there. On the other hand, if any or all of the three were not individually notable, but there was enough treatment in secondary sources for a combined article, then merges of the non-notable individual ones here would make sense, again keeping this article.

Now I have done just a quick view, but Google Scholar hits are plentiful. I would be very surprised if WP:GNG would fail taking all Huntresses together. Very interesting looks this freely available work, which, being French, may not plop up in every search. It has quite a bit material about the latter two characters carrying the title of Huntress, also comparing both and, arguably, some parts about the title itself when not clearly distinguishing between the two characters. This French PhD thesis also talks about those two Huntresses, and at least mentions Paula Brooks, too. Daranios (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drat, now I am not sure what kind of publication "Les femmes à Gotham City" is, if it is a master thesis after all or something else. Can anyone clarify? Anyway, that does not affect the rest of my argumentation. Daranios (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As that concern was raised, just collecting other sources which have more than passing mentions: War, Politics and Superheroes: Ethics and Propaganda in Comics and Film, Female Action Heroes. Daranios (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The two English books, sorry to say, look very much like passing mentions to me. Regarding the French thesis, I'd ask you to provide quotations and preferably translations here showing parts which meet SIGCOV. As for their reliability, PhD theses are usually considered reliable, Masters - less so. I'd say that IF the PhD thesis contains SIGCOV about all three, it would count as a good source, but I would be less willing to accept the Masters. Anyway, yes, we need sources that cover all three huntresses if we want to argue that an article about all three is independently notable. Since we still don't have a single reliably sourced sentence or quotation that discusses the significance/importance of all three, I stand by my initial analysis - this needs to become a disambig. And if some of the characters are not-notable, they need a redirect to some list, not a merge/split/forking(!) into a SYNTH disambig that fails GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Assuming for the moment that the overarching topic "Huntress as a comics character" when excluding all references to the individual incarnations does not have enough coverage to fullfill WP:GNG, then I still think starting here is doing it backwards. Assuming any of the three characters would fail WP:GNG on their own (or, well, at least in case two of them were), I see no reason why this would not be a correct merge target for them. I am looking at Reasons for merger: "3. Short text: If a page is very short (consisting of perhaps only one or two sentences) and is, in your opinion as editor, unlikely to be expanded within a "reasonable" (unspecified) amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it into a page on a broader topic. For example, parents or children of a celebrity who themselves are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity". Being the same context and pseudonym applied to different characters in the same medium, acutally within the same brand, seems to be at least as good a reason to cover these in one article as being related. So to reach a conclusion about this article, one could either look at the three individual articles first, if one was so inclined. Or take on the big job of looking at all four related topics now. Daranios (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I don't follow. If a subarticle is not notabe, merging it back here won't help anyone. Arguing that we need this expanded disambig because a subarticle is not notable is just weird logic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Why is that weird, given that you yourself have initally argued "and maybe we should just merge all three of them here". I am just taking this a step further and say we should not decide here, before the question is decided if merging any or all of the others here is the way to go. Daranios (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Well, if only one of them is notable, the best place to merge would be the article about "Huntress (the notable one)" which could have a section about "other characters named such". If none are notable, they all should be redirected to some lists. If 2+ are notable, they can have their own articles, and whichever is non notable, gets the redirect treatment. The overview article only makes sense if it passes GNG itself. Which so far I am not seeing sufficient sources for. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: If only one were notable, making the other two necessary to merge, I'd wonder if "Huntress (comics)" would not be the better title for the collected information in the end as compared to "Huntress (specific character)". If 2 were notable, I'd still suggest to merge the 3rd one here. Something like that you seem to have considered yourself in the nomination. And then we probably disagree on a basic point: You think the more or less abstract concept of Huntress (comics) would need to fullfill WP:GNG to have this article at all. I say, the three individual characters are subtopics of "Huntress (comics)". If none of them were notable individually, but we would have enough treatment in secondary sources to write an article that can fullfill WP:WHYN and WP:ALLPLOT, I think having such an article is just fine and in keeping with the guidelines. Anyway, whatever the case, I can just repeat that I think this article should not first be up for deletion and then be decided if it has some merits in some combination with the other articles. Daranios (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reiterate the WP:SYNTH guideline which I think explicitly tells us creating our own topic by arbitrarily merging others, when such a new topic does not pass stand-alone GNG, is a bad idea... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: "The Huntress is the name of several fictional characters appearing in comic books published by DC Comics" - this seems neither an arbitrary grouping nor a controversial statement to me. If you wanted, this statement could also easily be referenced, by "Des superhéroïnes à Gotham City" or All Star Companion (though not on the same page); and when looking into this I also found The Superhero Book, which on p. 186/187 has a dedicated article to "The Huntress", which explicitly talks about and links all three characters and has some commentary. Daranios (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Starting to look into Des superhéroïnes à Gotham City: une étude de la (re)définition des rôles genrés dans l’univers de Batman PhD: p. 62: Golden Age Huntress: Like many villainesses of the time falls under the "Dating Catwoman" cliché of being in a romantic relation to the hero she fights. p. 111: Editor justified the creation of the character of Helena Wayne by a wish to bring more diversity into the comic books. Also more diversity for the ALL-STAR JSA group, and give Power Girl (the only female in the groups at the time) someone to contrast with and befriend. p. 133: Between 1985 and 1989, she is the only Batman universe side character to attain the title superheroine, if I understand correctly. And sometimes gets to be the protagonist. p 135: Helena Bertinelli is an ambiguous female character since, unlike the other members of the Bat-Family, she doesn't hesitate to kill. Together they are at the forefront of a very marked increase in the number of female characters in the catalog of the publisher DC Comics. p. 145: Huntress is a typical character of "Bad Girl Art". She is a woman of action, has an ambiguous morality and is scantily (? translator says "short") clothed. Daranios (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep low quality timewaster AfD. Artw (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify Fails WP:NPLOT. Having hundreds of Google hits is nice and all but once one starts discounting restatements of plot information or passing/listing mentions the end result is a much smaller pool of usable sources. If this article were a draft, a submission would be declined, so this shouldn't be on the mainspace. If notability is a concern and if these sources are actually adequate, then whoever wants to work on it can do so in the draft or userspace. Avilich (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Huntress DAB page which contains links to the 3 DC characters and the Marvel character. All the information at this article is already contained in the subarticles, so nothing would be lost to readers. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an interesting AFD because there are many examples in comics of different characters using the same name (such as Robin mentioned above). So a lot of articles will potentially be affected by whatever is decided here. I think common practice so far has been to have an article for the parent name (such as Robin (comics) or Flash (comics)) and within that article entries for characters who have used that name. Some entries have links for articles, others without articles just have a couple paragraphs of description on the main page. But if the parent article were to be deleted, what would happen to the information on the characters without their own article? It would have to be redirected somewhere else, probably a giant list of characters. I personally would want to have an article on "The Huntress" with information on the three specific characters, and I think that is more helpful to readers as well. If any of the individual articles don't pass GNG, they would be merged here, rather than the giant list of DC Comics characters or something like that. So I say keep this article (and any other similar articles) for navigational reasons and as a potential merge/redirect target. I don't see it as an issue that this article exists. Rhino131 (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Robin and Flash are famous enough I am sure there are sources for them to have stand-alone overviews, like the "history of different Robins/Flashes". The Huntress is a much more minor character and as long as nobody can show such in-depth, independent coverage exists, she doesn't need a central article. Again - I'd be happy to reconsider if overview sources about all Huntresses are found. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't like the precedent deleting this would set. Articles have often been merged/redirected to articles like this one as an alternative to giant lists. If this goes, the lists are the only option. But yes, that's more of a personal preference on my part. Rhino131 (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about precedent here. Robin and Flash are significant that books have been written about the legacy of the name (see this or this). The outcome here might influence decisions on things like Quasar (comics), but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. This would serve as a set index for any characters that were named Huntress. Plus, @Haleth:, @Daranios:, @Artw:, and @Rhino131: are right about their claims. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as CSD G4. Identical article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Charlton

AfDs for this article:

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

An article about this person, contributed by the same editor, was deleted at AfD in January. Subsequently, there was a deleted draft and then the present instance was created this month (as was an article about the subject's work-in-progress "Fading Petals", on which the article creator has declared a COI, and which was speedy-deleted as promotional). I cannot see the extent to which the present article is a repost of that deleted in January, but, aside from the previews of "Fading Petals", most of the references (such as the local paper coverage) would have been available to the previous AfD. As things stand, I would say the subject still fails WP:FILMMAKER and this instance should be deleted as was the decision previously. AllyD (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Tagged page WP:G4 as the article was recreated by the same author with mostly the same sources. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2021 (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 11:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American Leadership Academy (LALA)

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

Subject on mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Page lacks independent sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only sources are made by the subject Leomk (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 08:08, 17 November 2021 (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 11:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hard Travelers

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

Non-notable band due to no significant coverage per WP:BAND. SL93 (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2021 (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 11:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

College of Agriculture Business Management, Latur

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

Per previous attempts to PROD, does not appear to be notable. Remark on the talk page from almost 10 years ago states " I have tried looking up information for this article but I am not able to find anything that can be reliably sourced. All find are facebook and twitter profile pages that cannot be used here. Found some blog and opinion pieces but that too cannot be used here. not sufficient matter for an infobox either" - and I must agree as I was not able to find anything significant either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any WP:RS. Behind the moors (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This clearly lacks any reliable sources. From what I can tell there isn't even the usual trivial name drops in articles about other stuff that some colleges get. Not that it would make this notable if there was, but you'd think there would be something out there about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2021 (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. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John St John, 12th Baron St John of Bletso

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:BIO and all but one source is just birth registers and a list of british peers. Hyperwave11 (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hyperwave11 (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hyperwave11 (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, pulling the material from WP:PRIMARY baptismal registers is WP:OR, but what the nom has described as 'just . . . a list of British peers', is not just that. That source, Cokayne, gives the subject a dedicated mini-biography, including birth, education, succession, marriage details (including the fortune his wife brought to the marriage), death, burial, and probate details. Whether this amounts to 'significant coverage' is, I guess, subject to how one interprets 'significant', but it is not 'just a list'. Indeed, the 'one' source implicit in the 'all but one' comment above was a dead web page that drew all of its information from Cokayne, almost all of it verbatim in violation of copyright, and I have now substituted those cites with Cokayne. Agricolae (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of the House of Lords. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious -- Cockayne is RS. This is now old enough for copyright probably not to be an issue. The use of Primary sources is sometimes appropriate. Yes, all peers were members of the House of Lords, but that does not mean that they were active as politicians. We do not have articles on every peer, but if not kept, this should be redirected to the article on the title, not deleted out of hand. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the copyright issue was one of citing a copyright-violating (and dead) web page. As a British web page it would be subject to UK copyright law, 'life+70', and with the sole attributed editor of the volume not shuffling off until 1969, its not even close to UK public domain (nor, as a 1949 publication, in the US if they renewed). Anyhow, the copyright status is rather moot, when the point is we should be citing the original published source and not some dead self-published web page that copied verbatim its text, whether still under copyright or not. Agricolae (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:POLITICIAN says that "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels" are notable. He was, whether he was "active" or not. We may not yet have articles on every peer (although we do on most and Wikipedia is a work in progress), but every peer who was entitled to sit in the House of Lords has a right to one. I don't recall any such article ever being deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All members of the House of Lords are automatically notable. Also, I added this reference, which may be derived in part from the Wikipedia article or another reference that already appears in the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that this citation provides nothing new and shouldn't used as an independnent source - it either derives from Cokayne or even from Wikipedia itself. That said, I have now added a truly independent source, Collins' Peerage (published during the lifetime of his children). Agricolae (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Automatically conferred notability via WP:NPOL as a member of the House of Lords. Curbon7 (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also note that I have noticed the nominator seems to be having trouble with understanding WP:NPOL, as I have already had to revert one of their bad draftifications. Curbon7 (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to go on record as objecting to this concept of 'automatic notability' for peers, when the policy only says they are "presumed to be notable". That may shift the burden from demonstrating someone is notable to demonstrating they are not, but it does not convey anything automatically. What is implicit in the one-legislature-fits-all guideline is the presumption that anyone gaining such positions would receive coverage of events leading to their selection (appointment or election). With the House of Lords, the only events involved are their birth and someone else's death, and hence the presumption of coverage is much weaker. An infant who inherited their title and then died during a period no parliament sat may fall short of notability in spite of the blanket presumption. Agricolae (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that we have even held that members of rubber-stamping "legislatures" in totalitarian countries are notable by virtue of their membership per WP:POLITICIAN, so I think it's entirely reasonable to assume automatic notability for members of a legislature which actually has some sort of influence over legislation. Also note that someone who died before taking up their seat is not actually a member of the House of Lords per se! Lord St John, however, held the title for ten years, so undoubtedly did take up his seat. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this claim to 'automatic' notability relies on flawed reading of the guidelines' "presumed". The difference is subtle but important - 'they are FOO so they are automatically notable' is an argument completely at odds with WP:NOTINHERITED, while 'they are FOO so it can be presumed there is enough sourcing for them to be notable' is not. The outcome would almost always end up being the same, but that 'almost' is noteworthy. Agricolae (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and above you say "every peer who was entitled to sit . . . has a right to a page". Arguing that a Wikipedia page is anyone's right is new to me - where is that from, Thomas Paine? Anyhow, it also contradicts what you just said, that someone entitled to sit but having no opportunity isn't even to be considered a member of the Hosue of Lords (and by implication is not covered by WP:POLITICIAN's presumption of notability - doesn't have a 'right to a page'). I bring this up not to highlight the inconsistency but to indicate that even when stated as an absolute, there is still room for interpretation, so we shouldn't pretend a guideline not stated as an absolute draws a black and white distinction. Agricolae (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can split hairs for as long as you want, but the fact is that WP:POLITICIAN has always been taken to mean that any member of a national or sub-national legislature is worthy of an article. Always. That's the clear precedent and consensus here at AfD, whether or not you happen to agree with it or want to argue semantics. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep What the nonsense Afd? A member of the House of Lords is clearly notable per WP:NPOL. How much do you need? Clearly WP:IDONTLIKE here. See another AfD outcome Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicary Gibbs, 6th Baron Aldenham (2nd nomination).VocalIndia (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2021 (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 11:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Cadet, Junior and U21 Karate World Championship

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

A user has created a run of articles about World Junior and Cadet Karate Championships. I am unsure of their notability as they are junior championships and the articles appear to fail WP:NOSTATS so I’d like a consensus on how to deal with them. Mccapra (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's only sources are from the sponsoring organization. I found no coverage of this event that wouldn't be considered routine sports reporting. Another indication of the importance of this event is the fact that winning it does not help convey WP notability. I don't see anything that shows this event for 14-20 year olds means any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (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. Anyone desirous of renaming the article is welcome to do so by gathering a consensus on the article talk page, or simply following WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt scorpions attack

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

WP:NOTNEWS, event and article come across as a one-off happening that likely would be hard-pressed to be placed elsewhere. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 04:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 04:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to say draftify—it's not completely out of the question that this may have some lasting significance—per WP:RAPID, let's put it in a drawer for now, and revisit this when the picture's a little clearer. FOARP makes a good point about draftification—we should keep and come back to this later, when the effects are clearer. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As always with a freak event that makes global news and an article is written right after it, it is just too soon to know what the impact of this actually is. It is quite possible, even likely, that it will continue to be discussed as a remarkably freak weather event for decades to come, or have other consequences. It may be cited e.g., as an example of climate-change causing seriously harmful event. Per WP:NEVENT "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable". Oppose drafitying as this is not a page-quality issue: it is a perfectly well-referenced page and should remain up. Draftifying will also make it less likely that anyone works on it in future to identify whether it did have WP:LASTING effect or not. FOARP (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly satisfies WP:GNG with plenty of international news coverage from New York Times, Washington Post etc... Hughesdarren (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to pass BASIC. ——Serial 19:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This looks like an entry from Wikinews. Clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events, which is not at all proven here–it is at the very least too early to tell. ––FormalDude ^talk 06:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Plenty of current coverage, we'll see if it's continued. (also, this sounds absolutely horrifying) -- Mike 🗩 18:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename ~~Egyptian scorpion attack~~ Aswan scorpion invasion. The appalled Grammar Police (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The current title is suitable for a horror movie in the style of Sharknado, but this improved title is perfect for an article that begins with: "In biological warfare, an Egyptian scorpion attack is a tactic used to to sow panic and fear ...". While there was a considerable invasion of scorpions in human habitats around Aswan that had been spared by the floods, it was not an attack. Also, "Egypt" is unnecessarily broad; We have articles named Downing Street mortar attack and London, Ontario truck attack, not England mortar attack" and Canada truck attack. If the article is kept, it should be renamed to something like Aswan scorpion invasion. --Lambiam 12:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename as suggested by Lambiam. PianoDan (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2021 (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. Fenix down (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Lemaine

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

Playing for the Saint Pierre and Miquelon national team does not confer notability. Player also fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – Saint Pierre et Miquelon is not a FIFA or CONCACAF member, so he fails NFOOTY. I'm more torn on GNG. Lemaine gets a bunch of passing mentions for his career ([18] [19], plus the stuff already in his article). He also (assuming this is the same person, which I am) gets quoted in articles about climate change, does photography, plus whatever this is? He seems to be an influential enough person to get plenty of minor coverage, but combined with the NFOOTY fail I think there isn't enough to save. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Keskkonnakaitse: Just because you mentioned it, I think that the thing about Le Maire de Miquelon-Langlade is just a list stating who the elected officials are for the town of Miquelon-Langlade. It seems that Lemaine is an advisor to the mayor of the town. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Noting the current references plus what Keskkonnakaitse added, in my opinion the subject doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Per nom, his soccer career claim to notability doesn't stand either. GauchoDude (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG, and in conjunction with his caps (I do think playing for the St Pierre NT should confer notability) should be kept.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2021 (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 Embryo#Development. RL0919 (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embryonic development

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

This seems to be covered well under Embryo#Development, where it is sourced and in more detail than the recently created article. As a result, I propose that we redirect Embryonic development to Embryo#Development, where the topic can be adequately covered. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created this page. Your argument makes sense to me. The only thing I would say is that Embryo#Development doesn't currently link to Plant embryonic development (it does have links to the other two pages on specific types of embryonic development, which are Human embryonic development and Animal embryonic development). So I would argue that we'd need to add links to Plant embryonic development in the appropriate places on Embryo#Development before deleting this page. I will try to remember to do that later as I need to go now and I don't want to do it in a rush and mess it up (but obviously if someone else beats me to it that's great). Famedog (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have now added the link on the Embryo#Development page. Famedog (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per the afd. Hyperwave11 (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, given that there are already separate articles on Animal embryonic development and Plant embryonic development, and anything that can be said about what traits these processes share is already well-covered at the redirect target. BD2412 T 06:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, unnecessary partial duplicate. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above comments.--Iztwoz (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2021 (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. As an aside, I would encourage contributors to future deletion discussions to be more concise. Prolix arguments do not always add a lot. Stifle (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archontology

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

The the word is in no RS English dictionaries (that I could find). It appears to have some currency as a Hungarian word, (hu:Archontológia) made from Greek components, but in English "archontologies" are just known as kinds of directories, peerages, etc. The current article appears composed of OR, and was seemingly created to promote archontology.org on the web (which it does, since Wikipedia acts as the sole amplifier for the invented English word). Without independent sources on "archontology" an article is not viable. Alexbrn (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find any evidence that 'archontology' exists as a legitimate subject for an article either. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of unnecessary neologisms... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete, because Reasons for deletion as per WP:DP:

1. speedy-deletion criteria met? evidently not; 2. copyright violations: nope; 3. vandalism: nope; 4. advertising/spam: not on the part of the 'inventor', long dead (cf. article as of 17 Nov 2021) — and not more than for any random book or TV show (s.b. for details); 5. content forks: nope; 6. neologisms or original theories: nope (in academic use for well more than a century; s.b. for details); 7. failure to find reliable sources: nope (cf. article as of 17 Nov 2021); 8. notability guideline: nope (in academic use for well more than a century); 9. living person: nope; 10. redundant/useless template: nope (cf. counter-argument 5 below) 11. overcategorization: nope; 12. unused/obsolete/non-free: nope; 13. contrary to established separate policy: evidently not (for 16 yrs); 14. otherwise not suitable: evidently not (for 16 yrs).

Argument for deletion 1: "in no RS English dictionaries", i.e. not an English word

Argument for deletion 2: "can't find any evidence that 'archontology' exists as a legitimate subject for an article"

archontology

- several other translations of Hungarian-language publications, e.g. a title translated as "New methods—New opportunities. Prosopography's new methods and its relation to traditional genealogy and archontology based on the almanac of the parliamentary sessions of the Reform Era" (books?id=TXHQDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA90)
(Seemingly) Non-Hungarian examples include
- Romanian Review of (seemingly) 1977, containing the following sentence: "Enough with this absurd anachronism, the hybrid archontological * Constitution which we should wisely and calmly send to the archives..." (books?id=rUFNAAAAYAAJ, p.108)
- Gold, Steven Jay (1993). Paradigms in Political Theory. Iowa State University Press (books?id=qw-CAAAAMAAJ, p.191) contains the sentence: "This is in a sense simply an archontological application of the context principle."
- the Masters Abstracts International of (seemingly) 1994 contains the phrase "Inseminate architecture: An archontological reading of" (Masters Abstracts International, vol. 32, 3-6 @ Google Books)
- elsewhere one finds "Major works dealing with historical geography are also listed, as well as those dealing with archontology and heraldry." (books?id=gwwWAQAAMAAJ, p.387)
- a Polish researcher is described as follows: "His research interests include social history [...]; archontology of the Late Middle Ages; [...]" (books?id=hiUlDwAAQBAJ, p.xv)

Argument for deletion 3: "current article appears composed of OR, and was seemingly created to promote archontology.org"

Which 'current' do you mean? Pre-Nov 2021 (by the original author) or the rewrite (by me, *not* the original author - nor in his employ)?
Counter-argument 3a: OR is not in itself a reason for deletion, or is it nowadays? Where does it say so (in the WP:DP)? Besides, you better delete every plot summary of every book, film, TV episode, etc covered in the WP then! Instead, request additional sources, why don't you?
Counter-argument 3b: archontology.org is but one website mentioned/listed. Is that 'promotion'? There's a wiki article titled "Ruler (film)" about a Telugu-language film in the 'English' wikipedia. Is that not promotion? Does that not consist of OR? Delete that then! Along with any other article on films, books, etc - esp. if not originally done in English...

Argument for deletion 4: "Without independent sources on 'archontology' an article is not viable"

Counter-argument 4a: Books published in/since the 17th century (mentioned in the article as of 17 Nov 2021) do certainly constitute independent sources. Not enough? Request additional sources, why don't you?
Counter-argument 4b: Either way, the term is clearly used — and has been used long before any of us, incl. the original author, was born (cf. counter-argument 2 above). What the original author did, was to provide a definition and explanation of the term. Isn't that the whole point of an encyclopedia? Not concise enough? Too much opinion? Well, there's a tag for that.

Argument for deletion 5: "unnecessary neologisms"

Counter-argument 5a: A word that has been used for centuries (in academic Latin, German, Hungarian, etc.) or at least decades (in academic English) is clearly not a neologism (again, cf. article as of 17 Nov 2021).
Counter-argument 5b: An encyclopedia like WP is there to provide explanations of words, esp. when such explanation would go beyond a single line fitting into a dictionary like wikt...
Counter-argument 5c: 'Necessity' is in the eye of the beholder. If a word is used and is not a synonym of another, then it is clearly not 'unnecessary'. Nobody is forced to read the article (or use the term for that matter), surely. Many though do (cf. counter-argument 2 above). 176.95.227.240 (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of chaff there, but still no source that shows this topic satisfies WP:GNG, addressing the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Is there even one semi-decent source on the topic of "archontology" that meets this criterion? If so, name it. Alexbrn (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned in the article (sorry, forgot the proper ref: Wertner, M. (1894). Ungarns Palatine und Bane im Zeitalter der Árpáden — Archontologische Studie. Ungarische Revue, 14, 129—1): https://books.google.de/books?id=xCMVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA129&dq=Archontologische+Studie - 176.95.227.240 (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a passing mention of the word in German, which required original research to extract. The concept in English (as I said in the nomination) is not called "archontology" but is just known as a kind of directory making. If you're going to show the topic of "archontology" is worthy of treatment on Wikipedia, you're going to need a source with an in depth discussion of what "archontology" is. If that's your best source it seems your're admitting there are no such sources. Alexbrn (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mention? It's the bloody headline. Is that not what you requested? "addressing the topic directly and in detail" - the cited article does address the topic *directly* (in the headline even) to then proceed in discussing it *in detail*. What more *do* you want? A definition? I have already provided one: The 1646 book title (cited in the article) IS a definition - again, right there in the headline ("Archontologia Cosmica, that is [...]"). Is that not *directly* enough for you? That book fills 1,000+ pages with what the headline promises - not *in detail* enough? How is that any different from the example in WP:GNG, "The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM."? Does this mean that a company on which no such report was written, doesn't exist? Or do you need a secondary source saying that the company exists before accepting its existence?

Here's another more concise definition, in English even: Bibliotheca Britannica (1824), vol.3, p.15: "ARCHONTOLOGY, signifies any thing that respects the constitution of chief magistrates." [20].

Another one, more recently (a 1999 review of Engel1996, previously mentioned), again in convenient English, and more to the point, and in more than one line, in case that'd be your next complaint: opens with a definition, in itself a quote, saying that archontology is "a branch of historical studies which deals with office holders and dignitaries. Its place is next to governmental history among the auxiliary disciplines. Its adjoining fields are [...]" (Kubinyi, A. (1999). The Hungatian Political Elite in the Middle Ages. Budapest Review of Books, 9(2-3), 65-70. [21]).

Or how about neither English nor Hungarian for a change, a Russian encyclopedic entry: "АРХОНТОЛОГИЯ (от греч. ἄρχων, род. п. ἄρχοντος – начальник, правитель), одна из вспомогательных исторических дисциплин, изучающая историю гос. должностей. [...]" [22] or the book mentioned in that entry (Stukalova, 2001), which does also provide definition & discussion: [23] 176.95.227.240 (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You prove the point. There is no detailed discussion of "archontology". Indeed, the word and its meaning don't even exist in current English. Your invocation of a definition from 1824 with a completely different meaning from that proffered by the article confirms this is not a coherent notable topic Wikipedia can grapple with. For that to be the case we'd need some evidence in passes the WP:GNG. Can you produce any source to satisfy this requirement? Alexbrn (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I have to rehash once more: The article was created 16 years ago. It saw numerous edits, with none of the editors complaining about it not being an English word (or did they?). There also are several sister articles in other languages. But hey, they *of course* don't know what they're talking about, right?

Then one fine day you hopped along, and instead of e.g. first requesting additional sources (or did you?), you just deleted most of the article as "*likely* OR" (again, you, the expert, couldn't be bothered to check or at least request ...). Have you even read it? Judging by your edit history for that day you can't possibly have... A mere 4 minutes later you proposed deletion altogether, falsely claiming that the original author invented the term. A simple search in Google Books or JStor or whatever could and does *easily* refute that argument. Is that arrogance or incompetence? What about due process & all that? No, it's the rules! Oh wait, not 'rules', but merely 'guidelines'. My mistake.

When I noticed the deletion proposal a couple days later I thought I'd invest a bit of my time and do a community service. So I took the time to write a draft (surely needs more sources, formatting, etc) to prevent the deletion & demonstrate the argument to be bogus. In response you came up with a new argument, namely that it is not an English word — even though piles of authors do use it as such and have been doing so for decades at least — not only but also in English. 'Current English' mind you, not Shakespearean English. Again, a simple search... You also claim that the article as "the sole amplifier" promotes archontology.org. How do you explain publications that predate not only the article, or the WP itself? Not to to mention that they don't mention archontology.org either - none the least because it also did not yet exist. Besides, does the article on Google promote Google? Does the article on the UK promote the UK? Do the articles on any random book or TV series promote those?

Next you stated that without independent sources 'an article is not viable'. And your solution to that issue was of course not to request such sources, but to rather have the article deleted. After all, *you* know best.

Additional claims of 'archontology' being a neologism are easily refuted as well. Again, a GooBooks/JSTOR search would do the trick. Alas, persistent lack of motivation or ability.

So, I took some more time to refute those arguments at short notice, only to be *summarily* dismissed as "chaff", i.e. irrelevant. Thank you very much.

Next you claimed that reading an article "required original research". In other words, once again you managed not only (1) to read my comment, (2) to look up the link, (3) to read the article in question, (4) to think about what you've read and (5) to write your response. Plus some 'OR' inbetween. All in the space of 9 minutes. Impressive! Though what you call 'OR' I'd call 'reading'.

And now it's back to the claim that it's not an English word? (And only English words are allowed to be covered by the English WP. Which is of course why there was no WP article on WP until some dictionary bothered to declare this neologism a 'word', an English one no less. Right?) I've already cited plenty of English-language text examples. Or would you seriously say that a word only becomes a word once some dictionary or other bothers to catch up with developments? So, before the publication of the first dictionary of the English language people didn't speak any English, they spoke only Norman French. And most of them only grunted, right? Chaucer? Just grunts.

At the risk of repeating myself: 'Archontology' was and continues to be used as an ordinary word in English-language publications. Even GoogleTranslate happily used the word when I tasked it to translate the cited Russian encyclopedia entry. Turns out there even is a wikt entry on it. But then, wikt is not reliable anyway, right?

I provided several definitions of the term that do fit not only the literal meaning of the word (a -logy, i.e. science, of archons, i.e. rulers) along with several (easily googled) examples of academic publications in academic *English*, i.a., that do use the term in line with the meaning of the word as well as the definition given in the article as well as the definitions I provided subsequently.

So, to me saying "(Stukalova, 2001), which does also provide definition & *discussion*", you respond: "There is no detailed discussion of 'archontology'." Is this Monty Pythons, are we doing the Parrot sketch? Splendid. I'm clearly wasting my time here. No wonder the original author did (apparently) not bother. In short, this discussion is evidently going in circles, which is a waste of my time. 217.91.11.181 (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy WP:MWOT. Rather than personal attacks and hand-waving, all that's needed is a couple of reliable sources with a detailed discussion of "archontology" (a dedicated article or book would be better still). This whole discussion arises from a posting at WP:RSN about whether archontology.org is a reliable source (spoiler: it isn't). Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and AndyTheGrump. Seems to be yet another personal essay aiming to make fetch happen; a dictionary definition bulked up with synthesis, with insufficient indication that it is a well-defined subject that needs a page unto itself. XOR'easter (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Public-benefit corporation

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

I am unconvinced of the need for a disambiguation page here. This is a WP:TWODABS page for which the primary topic is probably the vastly more well-developed Benefit corporation article. I would delete this page and redirect the title there. BD2412 T 04:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: This was recently changed from an article to a dab page by me. There are currently 150+ incoming links (many more, if you count the links to a couple of well-used and equally ambiguous redirects), which I'm slowly picking away at. So far, most of the ones I've looked at were intended for the public-benefit nonprofit corporation article, but again, I've only dealt with a few so far. It seems to me that this should be kept at least until the incoming links are resolved.

Another possibility to consider: the former article at this location as well as both of the target articles list several other entities that might be appropriate for a "See also" section in this page (mutual-benefit nonprofit corporation, religious corporation, non-profit corporation, low-profit limited liability company, community interest company), which might justify keeping it around.--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Benefit corporation per the nomination. Note that state law governs many of these, and they may differ from state to state. It is inconvenient that some of our article sources may themselves not be carefully distinguishing the for-profit and non-profit versions of these corporations. A Benefit corporation is a *for-profit* entity. For example, the incoming link from Purdue Pharma would probably require careful reading of the sources linked in the article to see whether what they mean is a for-profit or non-profit company. It is possible that what is referred to in that article is really a public beneficiary trust. A recent article at a Harvard Law website has some news about Delaware's law on public benefit corporations. When we are sure that an incoming link wants the *nonprofit* version, then a good redirect would be to Public-benefit nonprofit corporation. Even though that appears to duplicate Nonprofit corporation#Public-benefit corporation. EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Although Benefit corporation appears to be the better-developed Wikipedia article, I doubt it is the most common topic that users would be searching for with this term. These for-profit benefit corporations are fairly novel and uncommon, whereas non-profit organizations have been around for a long time, are numerous, and are the more likely topic that users are looking for. Both of the linked articles are regrettably U.S.-centric and do not address topics that users in other countries might be seeking. Plus, there are other topics even in the U.S. that might be listed on this page, such as New York state public-benefit corporations, which are more like public authorities than like charitable organizations. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rawr. Well, Benefit corporation needs a hatnote that refers to all of these articles. It would make a nice short hatnote to simply refer to this disambiguation page, but might not do a good job hinting at the available content. I'd lean toward redirecting this page and turning the contents into a somewhat long hatnote. But this is not a strong preference. -- Beland (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. Third entry was added, and it is obviously valid, taking away the grounds for deletion indicated in WP:ONEOTHER, which is the nomination's case, so there's nothing to discuss here now really. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2021 (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. No arguments were made to assert or establish the subject's notability. ✗plicit 11:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feliciano Canaveris

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

Fails WP:BASIC due to a lack of multiple, in-depth secondary sources. With the exception of a secondary 1853 book in which he receives a passing mention in a list of assassinated victims, Captain Canaveris receives only primary passing coverage which helps with WP:V but not WP:N. Initial edits to this page and connected bio pages suggest an attempt at using Wikipedia as a genealogy website (WP:NOTGENEALOGY). Pilaz (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 07:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Editors should be made aware that a sockpuppet investigation has determined that the two most prolific contributors to the page were socks of a 2015 sockpuppeteer. By my calculations, at least 92% of the character edits to this page are tainted by sockpuppeteering. I don't think a speedy delete under WP:G5 would apply here because some non-minor edits were made to the page by other editors. Pilaz (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can't be tainted by sockpuppets, only discussions (AFD, DYK, RFA, GAR etc) can. Now, block evasion is another thing. Geschichte (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Taking the article at face value, he was merely an officer in certain armies, probably not with a high enough rank to be notable without more. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2021 (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. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Prairie Rose (film)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, as it has not received any notable awards and the only coverage is two-sentence long or less descriptions at minor film festivals. The one review I could find does not come from a website with editorial oversight. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Deborah LaVine: Not notable for a standalone article for reasons laid out by the nominator. Suitable content should be merged to the article about the director, and this article should be redirected there. ––FormalDude talk 01:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. SoyokoAnis - talk 19:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2021 (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. Geschichte (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RainFurrest

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

non-notable convention, no reasonable coverage in the years it's been around and defunct. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’m not sure how it’s not notable. The convention is talked about decently in a book written by Fred Patten. He’s a notable source on the topic. I cited his book Furry Fandom Conventions, 1989-2015. This book has been cited in several furry articles.

The topic has also been covered in a book called Fan Identities in the Furry Fandom. This book has also been cited been cited in several furry articles.

There are also some news sources talking about this convention like the Seattle Metropolitan.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, I even found a IHeart podcast on this [right here].19:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note a different article on the same topic was deleted in 2010 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainfurrest). Hut 8.5 19:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, a pod cast, super definitive on notability! Please provide significant, in depth coverage. kthx. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: Please don't use sarcasm in text, I have a hard time reading peoples tone in text. I will admit that wasn’t my best argument. But, I’m not sure how the sources I used don't prove the topic is notable. There are like 3 sources cited in that article that go in decent depth on the topic.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop using sarcasm when you provide actual sources that meet our inclusion criteria. Thanks. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: like what? Like an entire book or chapter on the topic? The article ConFurence has like the same amount of sources as the article I created. I was gonna use [this] but, I think it might be satire.

I have seen other furry articles cite Flayrah, and Flayrah discusses the convention as well.

It feels like you are asking me to find 50 essays to prove this topic is notable.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CycoMa1, what Praxidicae is saying is for you to provide WP:RS. Furthermore please see arguments to avoid in an AFD. The existence of an article that may look like yours isn’t a valid point to make in an AFD. Celestina007 (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — WP:SIGCOV isn’t met. Celestina007 (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: I thought I did provide reliable sources. There are two sociology books cited in that article. One from Bloomsbury Publishing and another from McFarland. The authors of these books are sociologists. One of the authors literally has his own Wikipedia page Fred Patten. Also doesn't reliability depend on the context? It's not like this is a medical article.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CycoMa1, I’m afraid it was, the hidden premise there was basically implying that an article that already exists here optimizes the same sources you are currently using for 'your' article & yet it is being put up for deletion, that was indeed the hidden premise, which is basically being subtly WP:POINTy & as aforementioned, an example of a quintessential ATA in an AFD. Celestina007 (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: actually I kinda understand want you mean now. I read what you linked.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: my overall point is that I'm not sure how my article doesn't meet notability. One book cited in my article has like 7 pages on the topic and the other book I cited has like 3 or 5 pages. That's like ten or more pages. There are also like maybe like 5 or 7 news sources on this topic as well. These aren't brief mentions either, these sources have like paragraphs on the topic.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'm gonna throw this detail out there. The two books I cited in that article say a lot more on the topic. It's just I don't have access to all the pages from google books. Also I have stumbled upon other sources on this topic, its just writing this article all by my self kinda tired me out to be honest.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a good amount of news sources on this topic as well. Just didn't put them all in yet.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it seems like I am repeating myself. It's just there are certain details I keep forgetting to mention.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Furthermore please do not remove comments after they have been replied to. It tends to be disruptive as it confuses passerby editors, rather you strike out the comment. Lastly please see WP:INDENT and indent properly, I could fix it for you if you don’t mind but it isn’t good practice to edit the comments of other editors. Celestina007 (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: okay thanks for that. I always keep forgetting to slash the comments out, the comments I removed weren’t useful or added anything to the discussion to be honest.

But, I’m gonna sit this discussion out right now and wait for other people to comment on this.CycoMa1 (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If or not you felt the comment you made isn’t valid isn’t my point. it is good practice to strike them out rather than remove them (especially when they have been responded to), yes you are correct to state you want to sit it out at this juncture, you have done your part, my senior colleague Praxidicae has done hers, now it is left to the community to decide. Thanks for your time. Celestina007 (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have received a fair amount of coverage, especially the 2015 fiasco that got them banned from the Hilton. Also one academic in "Fan Identities in the Furry Fandom" describes it as a "well-publicized event." Tewdar (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it does appear to clearly cross the threshold of WP:GNG. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as satisfying GNG. Colin M (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the coverage in sources such as the Patten book and AV Club article are significant enough to meet WP:GNG. The fact that they were published years after the convention's demise demonstrates WP:PERSISTENCE. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The AVClub article isn't much to speak of but mentions in Patten and Austin's books would help establish notability if you could provide some page numbers. Any chance of that? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all points raised above. The specific pages from Patten's book are 186–189. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2021 (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 11:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunder Deep Group of Institutions

AfDs for this article:

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

~~fails to meet notability and WP:NCORP Advait (talk) 06:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 23:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 06:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 06:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per as Advait.kansal. Doesn't meet with WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. || Orbit Wharf 10:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 23:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No adequate sourcing for the article to be notable enough. As per above, fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG Wakowako (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Redirecting to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University seems like an option too; the only bits worth salvaging appear to be the name. It certainly exists, it might be having low enrollment or money troubles. In any case, there's no depth of coverage. tedder (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this discussion at delete, but the nominator and one of the supporting delete arguments turned out to be sockpuppets. I have undone the closure and relisted this for additional comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even in the local language, Hindi, I could find only two articles - low enrollment, chairman killed. --Hemanthah (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per sock nom and others (mainly: coverage not in-depth). — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DINO HAZARD

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

I'm very skeptical of this page but I'm listing as AfD rather than CSD in case someone with better Portuguese can find evidence of notability. The page appears to claim notability for a "franchise" consisting of a book, a video game, and a toy figure. They all appear to exist, but I can't find meaningful coverage of the franchise beyond a few passing references to game reviews and blogs reviewing the toys. I don't think it passes WP:GNG as I can't find significant coverage of the franchise itself, separate from the individual products. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is not looking good but it is indeed best-practice to see if Portuguese-reading editors can't dig something out. Ping me if they do, or they don't and this is relisted (at which point I'll probably take a delete stance). My BEFORE is not netting much else, and the current coverage is not impressive (this exists but does not appear to meet WP:GNG). I also wouldn't be averse to draftifying this if the creator comes back and promises to work on this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources indicating extensive coverage, and this "franchise" is only 5-years-old. Most media that recent have had no time to make an impact. Dimadick (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2021 (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 11:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Duhallow Junior A Hurling Championship

~~The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)~~ reopening and relisting as two of the participants have been blocked as sockpuppets. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Doesn't meet with WP:N(E) and WP:GNG. || Orbit Wharf 19:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)~~ sockpuppet – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. || Orbit Wharf 19:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Duhallow Junior A Hurling Championship. Not sure if this version addresses the concerns of the previous. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete same concern as the 2017 article. Also, should this be nominated Duhallow Junior A Hurling Championship--Rrmmll22 (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC) sockpuppet – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it may or may not be worth noting that 2012 Duhallow Junior A Hurling Championship is now salted Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT (in particular WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE and WP:DEPTH). And, while not entirely or directly applicable, some of the tenets of WP:NSEASONS would seem to be relevant here. In short: there is nothing to indicate that this single staging of a divisional (regional) amateur sporting competition has been subject to significant coverage or otherwise satisfies the notability criteria for such events/seasons. The coverage of individual games in the season (linked in the article) is the type of WP:ROUTINE coverage that, while perhaps useful to support the text, doesn't establish notability of this single running of the competition. Not as a whole. Where relevant those refs could be included in the (main) Duhallow Junior A Hurling Championship article (to confirm which teams participated, won, etc). Otherwise it seems that the Wikipedia article is the only place where this single staging of this regional/divisional competition is discussed (WP:NOTWEBHOST). Personally I'm not seeing how NEVENT is met and mine is a "delete" recommendation. (I would also note that it's disheartening to see the creator continue to create multiple similar articles. Without seemingly acknowledging or engaging with the concerns raised by other editors. Including re-creating these types of articles over previously moved/drafted/deleted titles. To the extent that salting has been seen to be necessary....) Guliolopez (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: procedural relist as the first two participants have been blocked as sock puppets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. FWIW, whether the nom was a sock or otherwise had no bearing on my !vote. And it remains a "delete" recommendation. (This single running of a regional/amateur sports competition doesn't meet SIGCOV/GNG/NEVENT requirements. The limited coverage focuses on individual games within the competition. A form of routine coverage. That just about supports some of the text. And might support the notability of the competition as a whole (Duhallow Junior A Hurling Championship). But not this single running/season of the competition (2020 Duhallow Junior A Hurling Championship).) Guliolopez (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hard to disagree with the rationale presented by Guliolopez. Whilst I usually like to oppose AfDs started by socks on principle, it's quite clear that this isn't a notable topic and I don't see the point in restarting the conversation just to reach the same inevitable outcome (which is what would happen if we went for procedural keep followed by a 2nd AfD). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per sock nom and Guliolopez. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2021 (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 Minneapolis City Council. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Koski

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

City council member. Her father was mayor, but that's not her. No reason for notability. Mvqr (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 18:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The endorsement from the local daily newspaper notes her opposition to defunding the police and imposing rent controls. This makes civic unrest more likely, as well as more headlines about Minneapolis in national and world media. Also relevant: "'The eyes of the country will be on Minneapolis' | Political analyst predicts significant shift in city council after election". kare11.com. November 1, 2021. Retrieved 2021-11-10. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as speculative. If there is future civil unrest in Minneapolis and if she becomes notable due to that civil unrest, then she should have an article, but as of now, she is not notable in my view. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 20:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Minneapolis City Council. Better to maintain the page's history in case she ever seeks higher office. KidAd • SPEAK 19:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with the above comment, redirect would be best if she becomes notable in the future. Eastmain's view is entirely speculative and has not demonstrated she is notable on her own. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Minneapolis City Council. I think Minneapolis is a city where a well-sourced article about the accomplishments of a councilmember could pass WP:NPOL, but the article must be much more than "they exist." --Enos733 (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Minneapolis City Council per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2021 (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. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Forrest (baseball)

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

Notability concerns. Only references are statistical databases. Does not meet WP:NBASE - the Lincoln Giants were not in a major league level Negro league when he played (a total of 11 games) for the team. No other coverage found; as there are many other people of this name it is possible I missed something. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The NY Lincoln Giants are one on the most formidable pre-Negro league teams out there, having been the 1912-1913, 1915, 1917-1918 East champs. League play did not organize in the East until 1923, & the NY Lincoln Giants are considered a major-league-caliber pre-Negro league team. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't qualify for a speedy keep, even if NBASE is met. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looking at the spirit and intent of NPBase, a player from a historically important league should be presumed notable even if this particular league isn't mentioned. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets the spirit of WP:NBASE, such is the purpose of SNGs for pre-internet figures. Curbon7 (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if Forrest meets WP:NBASE, that doesn’t mean the article must be kept. In my eyes, Forrest doesn’t meet the overarching WP:GNG. Yes, he played during times where sources that documented him are somewhere but maybe it’s hard to find (and he has a difficult name to boot). Still, the article has two sources, and they are both statistical databases which cannot contribute to notability. I couldn’t find any sources myself, and those who support to Keep have not provided any sources either. RolledOut34 // (talk) // (cont) 03:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bison X and Curbon7. With the Negro League now considered a Major League, playing for the Lincoln Giants at least meets the spirit of NBASE, and the subject of pre-integration black players is an area where I think it makes sense to interpret our guidelines more rather than less inclusively. While coverage may be difficult to find, that is not unexpected for a subject whose primary notability came more than 100 years ago. Rlendog (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that Home Run Johnson was included on this year's Hall of Fame ballot and his playing for the NY Lincoln Giants and the Brooklyn Royal Giants of the same league was used as part of the justification in his bio, which confirms for me that we should be considering NY Lincoln Giants players of that era to meet NBASE. Rlendog (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2021 (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. None of the sourcing presented convinces me the subject meets WP:GNG, not even through WP:BASIC.

Thanks everyone for your contributions and assuming good faith with this decision. If you have a problem with it, please bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Farmer

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

Not a notable person. Article is promotional, books appear self-published. Reviews of plays he was associated with don't even mention his name. I did find a BBC interview, but not enough to meet GNG. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article
Notable person links

Director of Tiebreak Theatre See Tiebreak theatre and sources therein.
He directed Kure Kure: Far Away which toured thoughout the United Kingdom. Information and tour dates about Kure Kure tour 2019 Kure Kure Takora
WINNERS OF THE 2018 ESU ENGLISH LANGUAGE AWARDS ANNOUNCED Winner English Speaking Union (20 November 2018) Resources for Teachers
Edinburgh Reports Marvellous Shows for Tiny People Review in The Telegraph
David Farmer London Drama workshop
Presentation, Slovakia 2016 //ska2016kosice.wordpress.com/2016/09/02/david-farmer-plenary-and-drama-workshop/ "David Farmer: Plenary and Drama Workshop"
The Performers Conference: Presenter, Buenos Aires 2018 Buenos Aires, Argentina
Conference presenter Dicle University Turkey 2013
David Farmer Five Drama Games for Language Teaching Macmillan Conference 2020
NILE Course 2022^[1]
Hellenic Culture Centre course Hellenic Foundation for Culture 2022
Article for Macmillan Macmillan Publishers
Day, Helen (10 November 2011). "Review: Learning Through Drama in the Primary Years" (PDF). Teaching Drama: 33.

Internationally notable director, teacher, author, pedant and dramatist. Notabilty clearly established. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The vast majority of those are standard bios and listings from organizations he worked with i.e. not independent sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep and improve per User:7&6=thirteen, or, failing that, draftify. BD2412 T 06:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC, massive REFBOMBING is unconvincing. Mztourist (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tiebreak Theatre is unreferenced, its notability not established, and notability of an organisation does not automatically mean notability of a member. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tiebreak Theatre, which has almost the same content. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2021 (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 02:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Star Cinema (disambiguation)

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

WP:TWODABS applies. ~~Hatnotes are~~ A hatnote is enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hatnote to what? Leomk0403 (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. To answer Leomk0403, the hatnote currently at Star Cinema would be changed to point to Star Cinema (theater). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 20:37, 17 November 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andoni Island

AfDs for this article:

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

Keep It appears that I was mistaken in my initial source reading. The two appear to be distinct — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC) This article appears to be about the same entity as Andoni, based upon what I can pull out of the blob of unformatted references. I therefore propose that Andoni Island it be made into a redirect to Andoni. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One is an island, and the other is a Local Government Area. Also, nothing has changed in the month since the last Afd. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
obvious merge I really cannot see a reason to divide this, given that the geography and the political boundaries are the same and have essentially the same names. Mangoe (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do 124 and 233 km² fit within the "same" boundaries? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both are separately notable for their reasons. The island is a larger area that is more notable for its protected environment. They're not quite the same area. Gorden 2211 (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per differences explained above and procedural keep (can combine as the same conclusion) per appearance of WP:FORUMSHOP. gidonb (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons given above - two different things.Ingratis (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2021 (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 per WP:CSK#1. Just merge it. – Joe (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ki the Earth Goddess

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

This article, which was moved into the mainspace on 9 November 2021, is the same topic as Ki (goddess), which was created in 2007. We should not have two articles on the same thing and, when a new article is created that is redundant to a long-existing article, it has to go. Therefore, I propose this newly created article be redirected to Ki (goddess) with its history preserved, so that the two articles can be made into one. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ki (goddess). Leomk0403 (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2021 (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 1982 AFC Youth Championship. The content remains available under the redirect for anyone desirous of completing the merger. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1982 AFC Youth Championship qualification

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

This article does not credibly assert notability as a WP:SPORTSEVENT; it's a "Youth championship" qualifier series. As a WP:EVENT, it similarly appears to fail to have generated WP:SUSTAINED coverage and a WP:LASTING impact. Therefore, I propose that this article be redirected to 1982 AFC Youth Championship ~~deleted~~ (updated 06:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nominator. Also, WP:SUSTAINED. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1982 AFC Youth Championship as WP:ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 19:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1982 AFC Youth Championship. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2021 (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. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Trinity Cathedral Senior High School

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

Contested PROD. WP:BEFORE came up with a few WP:ROUTINE mentions, but nothing significant enough to meet WP:ORG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I could find is a trivial name drop in a magazine article about a student and something about how they lack certain amenities that was an interview with the principle or something. There's also some trivial mentions in a few news articles about other stuff. None of which makes this pass the bar it needs in order to be notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again as previous relist yielded no further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 01:44, 17 November 2021 (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. No comments, not eligible for soft deletion, I'm not spinning the wheel and sending it for another week. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Kemy

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

I do not see evidence that he passes NMUSIC with the award being the best claim to notability. On the GNG front While the fr.wiki article is longer, sourcing concerns remain, they don't appear to be independent reliable sources - mostly listings and interview/profiles. Star Mississippi 20:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again as previous relist yielded no further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 01:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spire Institute and Academy

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

This company (a private sports training facility in the USA) does not seem to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I've reviewed the sources, and they are very poor for a newly created article: A mixture of irrelevant articles, brief mentions, press releases and 404s. The quality of the article does not seem to have improved much since it was last draftified. This article was never approved via the AFC process. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single press release, we've checked every source and not a single one is a 404. They are one of three Official FINA Training Centres in the entire world, are a designated training site for USA Wrestling, the United States Olympic team, and are an official Olympic and Paralympic training site. These sources are the same if not extremely similar to IMG Academy which has no notability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMG_Academy Mooneys44 (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC) - Strike sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StarAthlete04 --Jack Frost (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is one of the sources from the article: [24], are you telling me this isn't s press release, @Mooneys44? Salimfadhley (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One needs to avoid WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first half is written by and authored by Inside Lacrosse. Sure. We'll remove that one instance even though it has original content written by a third party. Mooneys44 (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC) - Strike sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StarAthlete04 --Jack Frost (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ADMASQ is evident here. I have found regurgitated press releases, a "You are not allowed to access this server" message, and am unconvinced about reference quality. There are sufficient references to prevent one from going into detail without huge effort. I smell UPE and a tag team of editors called "We" who may be sock or meat puppets. At the very least WP:TNT and creation of excellence of referencing. It is not evident thagt this passes WP:NCORP. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Athenais of Media Atropatene

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

Likely fails WP:V, and if not that, then at least WP:BASIC and WP:NOTGENEALOGY are not satisfied. Not one of the sources here (the majority unreliable anyway) so much as mention the subject. One of them, "Athenais article at Ancient Library" (an internet copy of the 19th-century DGRBM) is about two other people, Athenais Philostorgos I and Athenais Philostorgos II, both of which belong to the same family as the alleged subject -- so there's actually a large possibility of confusion here. WP:BEFORE-hand check: the PW, which is probably the best and largest classics encyclopedia, has no individual entry on any "Athenais of Media Atropatene", whereas a Google search returns (after discarding Wikipedia forks/mirrors) almost invariably one of the two "Athenais Philostorgos" I mentioned earlier. The part about the coinage is referenced to a numismatics website which, again, does not identify her; that entire section appears to be WP:OR and may, for all I know, be 100% bogus. The rest of the article is just filler genealogical trivia: maternal and paternal grandparents, uncle and aunt-in-marriage, basically nothing about the subject itself. Even ignoring the question of verifiability, there just doesn't seem to be enough information to write an article about this.

I PRODed this a couple months ago, but the notice was removed by you-know-who, with no justification as usual, so I have to bring this here. Avilich (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Terrible sourcing. I note that Darius II of Media Atropatene is entirely based on the same - a personal web page (now dead) and a Usenet post. Whatever happens with this AfD, someone should do a patrol and purge of Wikipedia for all mentions of the latter (the Baldwin reference). Agricolae (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Agricolae: for what it's worth, I found this discussion from 2016, involving an individual who seems to be the Baldwin in question. He and another participant did see this very page and both seem completely perplexed by the claims made here. So, apparently, not even that obscure Baldwin source supports what the article says: another reason for regarding this person as fake. Avilich (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find anything to satisfy WP:V. If, at least, the coinage could be verified as depicting someone of this name, I would support Redirect to Artavasdes I of Media Atropatene per WP:PAGEDECIDE. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to her husband. The existence of coins (if real) with her name on means that we ought to have a redirect. I suspect that there will be RS for the genealogy. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: but that's precisely the point, there aren't any such coins, and for all I know she doesn't even exist. Did you even read the nomination or the article? I also don't know what could possibly be merged, considering the article is 50% genealogy cruft and 50% unverifiable OR. Avilich (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2021 (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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Fatimah Bisola

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

Article about a government commissioner of no special notability - one of many. Fails WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 11:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think previous AfD discussions of Nigerian state commissioners have ended with deletion unless they were particularly notable for some reason. This one doesn’t seem to be. Mccapra (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references provided it meets the General Notability Guidelines WP:GNG apart from being commissioner, also commissioners in Nigeria are basically notable. An@ss_koko^{(speak up)} 19:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 13:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 13:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.PER NOM.Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 13:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 11:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have detailed coverage in reliable sources. Mtpos (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:NPOL, Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels are presumed notable. I don't think that this is limited to elected officials; judges are often appointed, and it would be odd to read the guideline in a way that would include elected judges and exclude appointed ones. Since Nigeria is a federal republic, I believe that the guideline extends a presumption of notability to individuals who have held statewide office in Nigeria, even if that office is appointed. Therefore, I presume this individual to be notable. While Nigeria's official language is English, I'd expect there to be local media and other sources written in local languages that would be hard to find. As a result, I don't see a weak fail on GNG as disqualifying when WP:NPOL indicates that we should presume notability. I believe that keeping the article would be best. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again as previous relist yielded no further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 00:08, 17 November 2021 (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 11:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Williams (actor)

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, every actor does not automatically get an instant notability freebie just because acting roles have been had -- the notability test is not in the list of roles per se, but in the depth and quality of the sourcing that can be shown to demonstrate the significance of those roles: critical analysis about his performances, evidence that he has won or been nominated for major acting awards, and on and so forth. But the only discernible notability claim here is that roles were had, and the only reference is an IMDb-style directory of voice actors which is not a reliable or notability-assisting source, and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-10 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 00:07, 17 November 2021 (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 Freddie Mercury#Relationships. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Austin

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

This article has been on NPP for years and all we've got is a number of tags. I believe that this article should be merged and redirected to Freddie Mercury#Relationships. First of all almost all the information from this article is already there. Secondly, there's no coverage on the subject as an independent individual - only in connection to FM. I have found many additional sources that can be added to Freddy's article to back the statements about their relationship. Here they are - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Talk to me) Less Unless (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Subject does not inherit notability. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 00:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge+ Redirect to Freddie Mercury#Relationships. We can make a new subheading. Leomk0403 (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect to Freddie Mercury#Relationships as above. Not enough independent coverage to merit a stand-alone article. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content per above but do not redirect.

She is surely not WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for the name Mary Austin. We have three other articles on people with that name (and one mountain). Mary Austin (disambiguation) should be at the basename (by WP:ROBIN swap).

I've cleaned up the inlinks to Mary Austin. There were eight from mainspace, all relating to Mary Hunter Austin. The article which this discussion is about is now a WP:ORPHAN. Narky Blert (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2021 (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.

^ "NILE offers courses and consultancy for teachers, trainers and other language education professionals in Norwich, UK, and worldwide. "NILE is one of the world’s biggest providers of training and development for English language teaching. Since 1995, we have trained over 50,000 teachers from over 60 different countries, ranging from short specialist courses to Cambridge CELTA and Delta and a modular MA specially designed for ELT teachers and trainers. "As well as providing training courses online, in the UK and overseas, we are regularly involved in the development and implementation of large-scale education reform projects around the world. We have built successful links and partnerships with national and regional education ministries and with prestigious teacher education institutions globally."

[atlas21-1] Annys, S., Vanden Bempt, T., Negash, E., De Sloover, L., Ghekiere, R., Haegeman, K., Temmerman, D., Nyssen, J., 2021. Tigray: Atlas of the humanitarian situation, version 2.1. Ghent (Belgium): Ghent University, Department of Geography Archived 2021-10-13 at archive.today

[2] Associated Press, 15 November 2021: 'You can't even cry loudly': Counting Ethiopia's war dead

[3] CBC, 2 April 2021: As It Happens: The Friday Edition (from 28:00 to 35:30) Tigray, Ethiopia Massacre

[4] EuroNews, 2 April 2021 – See film embedded in the news item: G7 'seriously concerned' about human rights violations in Ethiopia's Tigray region

[5] ttps://theworld.org/media/2021-04-02/counting-victims-tigray

[6] The Guardian, 2 April 2021: Ethiopia: 1,900 people killed in massacres in Tigray identified

[AP_you_can_t_even_cry_loudly-7] Anna, Cara; Keyton, David; Castaneda, Nat (2021-11-15). "'You can't even cry loudly': Counting Ethiopia's war dead". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2021-11-15. Retrieved 2021-11-20.

[8] 'Slaughtered like chickens': Eritrea heavily involved in Tigray conflict, say eyewitnesses

[9] The Guardian, 2 April 2021: Ethiopia: 1,900 people killed in massacres in Tigray identified

[10] ttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/terror-and-security/bodies-torn-pieces-ethiopian-eritrean-troops-accused-massacre/

[11] "NILE offers courses and consultancy for teachers, trainers and other language education professionals in Norwich, UK, and worldwide. "NILE is one of the world’s biggest providers of training and development for English language teaching. Since 1995, we have trained over 50,000 teachers from over 60 different countries, ranging from short specialist courses to Cambridge CELTA and Delta and a modular MA specially designed for ELT teachers and trainers. "As well as providing training courses online, in the UK and overseas, we are regularly involved in the development and implementation of large-scale education reform projects around the world. We have built successful links and partnerships with national and regional education ministries and with prestigious teacher education institutions globally."