Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 11

< January 10 January 12 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Hoare (environmentalist)

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

No indication that Hoare meets WP:BIO. He was born into a notable British banking family, but WP:NOTINHERITED. He has possibly served on the board of some charities (some citations fail to verify these facts), but he has not done anything notable while serving on those boards. He has founded a non-notable software company. Google searches do not generate any significant information about him. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS: The article was created by Unirisk32, a username clearly associated with Hoare's "Universal Risk" organization,[1] so there may be an element of self-promotion here. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "About those behind Universal Risk". Universal Risk. Retrieved 5 January 2022.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — likewise couldn't find any independent, significant coverage to establish requisite notability. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 22:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - None of the sourcing in the article is useful for establish notability as they are not independent reliable sources. I can find nothing that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 00:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Catholic Church of America

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

Clearly fails WP:NCHURCH. No mention to be found anywhere of this denomination outside of its website; no mention in the 2009 Melton's encyclopedia of American religions, or in Google books or Google scholar.
I recommend deletion for clear lack of notability. Veverve (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a little bit about the denomination here, where we're told that it "has no pope, ordains women, marries couples regardless of gender and makes celibacy optional". That mention isn't enough to establish notability on its own, of course, but perhaps it suggests that more sources are out there? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That source also says that this church has "fewer than a dozen parishes", but presumably at least eight because they are in eight states (unless a parish can cross a state boundary). I'm not sure whether that is enough to suggest that more sources are available. I suppose it depends on what impact those 8–11 have had. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- This appears to be a denomination, though a very small one. [[1]] lists four clergy possibly serving five congregations. Is it so small that we should delete it? I do not think we have any consensus on minimum size. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peterkingiron: WP:NCHURCH is an official policy, and it makes no mention of how many parishes a denomination claims being a notability criteria. Veverve (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I did a quick search, there's practically nothing on this church. Their web page is very elusive, with just a few pics of some guys in robes. I suppose its possible this denomination *may* be notable, but there's nothing here to indicate it is. All the references aren't independent, so don't meet WP:RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Insufficient coverage to demonstrate notability for this church due to the lack of reliable independent sources Such-change47 (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Mullon

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

Does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Current sources are either routine coverage or non-independent (interviews, sponsored, etc). MarioGom (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhalobasar Choan

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

No indication of notability. Can't find anything about this film. Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 20:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bada Kaji you said can't find anything about this film.Here is the link of the music album from this film.Please check https://www.jiosaavn.com/album/bhalobasar-choan/Owm3pZrzA9U_ https://gaana.com/album/bhalobasar-choan https://music.apple.com/us/album/bhalobasar-choan-original-motion-picture-soundtrack/1227426075 movie description: https://web.archive.org/web/20211216123922/https://www.induna.com/1000006560-productdetails/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Seeker of Truth (talk • contribs) 14:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Database listing doesn't prove notability. Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 15:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no secondary refs. RemotelyInterested (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ketel One. without deletion. Anything worth merging can be found in the history. No bar to a more substantial article being written in the future if suitable sources can be found. SpinningSpark 12:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carolus Nolet

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

I couldn't find evidence that he passes WP:GNG. The only source provided in the article is a forbes list of billionaires which is not enough to show notability. WP:BEFORE search hampered by his son also having the same name. I couldn't find evidence that he has notability outside of the company that he is chairman of. Possible redirect target would be Ketel One. Suonii180 (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I question whether just being a billionaire is enough to confer notability. (Also, do we count it in dollars, euros or what?) PatGallacher (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is he "just a billionaire", as you say, or also an accomplished business leader? Maybe read up a bit on the subject? gidonb (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ketel One. On his own, he has no in-depth coverage. He is only known as the CEO and heir to Ketel One. MartinWilder (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Ketel One. Nolet passes the WP:GNG. Still, the article so short that we're better off merging. Most of Nolet's fame is related to Ketel One. gidonb (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what information there is to merge over. Ketel One already states that he took over in 1979 and other than that the only information in his article is that he's a billionaire and has two children which I don't think are relevant enough to add to the company's article. I don't think at present that the article does pass WP:GNG as it only has one source that doesn't provide in-depth information about him. Suonii180 (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a useful data point plus reference. There are many more possible sources. This business leader (in this AfD belittled to just a rich man) passes the WP:GNG. Per WP:NEXIST, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The bold is in the source. But all that does not matter. Since the article is so short, we should merge anyway. gidonb (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bettina Devin

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. I can only find one interview, in something called Rivetting Riffs Magazine. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gretta Boley

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete heads of national forests are not notable for such. An announcement of someone being even a key-note speaker at some meeting or conference is not a show of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreeing with the above, there also does not seem to be enough coverage on her from reliable sources. Coolcactus04 (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found a few dozen mentions in Newspaper.Com articles, and she looks to be supervising Mississippi's national forests since 2008 and is quoted occasionally in that role as late as 2017. There may be more to find, but keeping someone's PTE sockpuppet project alive doesn't motivate me to want to make the effort. No hard-to-find sources will be lost if this is deleted. BBQboffin (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do not see how this subject meets the basic criteria for notability of people per WP:BASIC nor any of the expanded criteria per WP:ANYBIO. There must be countless public servants managing national parks of significance in the U.S. and across the world, only those with sufficient notability would be suitable for inclusion. A reference to the supervisor could be made in the national park she supervises. Alternative to deletion, a redirect could be created to this article. I did not vote for a redirect as my primary option as this individual is so insufficiently notable it is inherently unlikely that individuals would be searching for the subject's name and so a redirect whilst possible is not necessary. Such-change47 (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Team SoloMid. North America1000 22:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Dinh

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

No claim of significance aside from being the COO of a company and the brother of a notable former esports player. I could not find any secondary or tertiary sources for this individual, and this article is only sourced by primary sources which do not attest as to why this individual is notable. CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: not notable person, poorly sourced. Ctrlwiki (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Team SoloMid. Fails WP:BIO per nom and WP:INHERIT. SBKSPP (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed my vote per BriefEdits's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Seems like he's big in the scene but struggles with sources that Wikipedia finds to be reliable (I.e. reputable publications, non-interviews, etc.). As most coverage appears to be related to Team SoloMid, a redirect will probably be more useful than a delete. — BriefEdits (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Team SoloMid. Search suggests that he is the COO of the company and a part of their roster. --Lenticel (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Team SoloMid. As the Chief Operating Officer, he is sufficiently notable to warrant a redirect even if a lack of sources demonstrate insufficient notability for a standalone article. Such-change47 (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not a "reliable source" but Leaguepedia is a good repository of esports information related to League of Legends. According to Dan Dinh's article on the wiki, he has never played for a professional team (i.e. in a major professional league), and was never the head coach for a professional team (only one of several coaches for his brother's organisation TSM and later Cloud9). I honestly think it is a stretch to say his notability is only hampered by a lack of sources that Wikipedia deems reliable, as that would imply there are "unreliable" secondary mentions. However, this is not the case. Dan has not involved himself in the esports scene in any significant way since 2014, and his position was given to him by his brother, who is the CEO. The number of Google results are also due to "Dan Dinh" being a common name; a quick navigation of the results will give you many different Dan Dinhs. CentreLeftRight ✉ 02:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Per above. Esports coverage, especially esports coverage in the early 2010s, was almost non-existent, so while Reginald is notable as he was able to permeate that media desert, Dan Dinh is not. Curbon7 (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whitey Ritterson

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

non-notable former baseball player. as always, a mention in The Rank and File, but sorrowfully little else. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not have enough cases of in-depth coverage to justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.. played in 16 games in Major League Baseball in the first year the National League existed... nominator seems to have a bias against 19th century figures for whom modern day sources are harder to come by. Spanneraol (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Played basically a season in the MLB. The Rank and File has information which can be included. Here is a death notice, though it can't really be considered significant. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NBASE. Rlendog (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - general notability guidelines are not always applicable, and we must consider that 19th century sources may have little significant coverage accessible through a google search due to the age. Per WP:NBASE, baseball players are presumed notable if they have appeared in at least one active major league game, of which this subjects has plated in many more than this requirement. Notability is hence presumed and I see no other valid ground for deletion. Such-change47 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: 16 games is well beyond the point where we can consider that the player probably has sources. Curbon7 (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 4 April 1918

AfDs for this article:
Action of 4 April 1918 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1. Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable. This is a skirmish within an engagement. Neither primary nor secondary sources consider this material enough to be a battle in its own right. 2. This is written by an indefinitely suspended user with a history of adding essays to wikipedia. 3. It lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. The afternoon firefight between an inideintified submarine which did not sink and three transports on April 4, 1918 is not described as a battle in its own right by reliable sources. 4. Given that this "battle" is not documented elsewhere, it is a new battle as theorised by the creator's original research. This battle honor is not recognized as such by the United States Navy. His creations have the prefix "Action of" and a suffix of the date in British English format, to emulate the manner/format in which certain battle honors of the Royal Navy were recorded from 1847 onwards. Keith H99 (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons. These articles contain lots of maybes and probablys. They have a reading list at the foot of the page. They do not have inline citations. They do not explain why nations other than Great Britain would be using British English date formatting when commemorating these "notable battles".

Action of 8 May 1918 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Action of 21 May 1918 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Action of 18 June 1918 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Action of 5 September 1918 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Action of 9 April 1914 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks for reading. Keith H99 (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - not sure why date formatting would be a factor in article deletion, but "DMY" date formatting is not just a "British English format", but also used on all modern U.S. military articles as well. (fyi) - wolf 22:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is indicative that it is one of his fantasy POV essays. If you read about the "Action of 13th December 1814" that I have nominated for deletion, it tells a tale about how a sailor with superhuman hearing defeated a fleet of 40 British boats at night. If you read Roosevelt's history, there were seven rowboats, and the firefight took place between 1530hrs and 1930hrs. No sneaky night attack whatsoever took place. It is not a battle, is not documented as such by reliable sources, and is one user's fantasy.
If the occurrences on April 4, 1918 had indeed been documented by the likes of the US Naval History and Heritage Command as the "Action of 4 April 1918" then I would have expected to see this term in common usage, rather than being used solely by a wikipedia article created by a banned user with a history of unsourced fantasy essays. Keith H99 (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action of 13 December 1814
Talk:Action_of_13_December_1814 Further discourse on its proposed deletion. Keith H99 (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All creator was indeffed for copyvio and Earwig search shows that all of these pages, other than Action of 9 April 1914 are largely copied from https://wartimememoriesproject.com/greatwar. Pages lack sources and fail WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this from his other account [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/$1LENCE_D00600D]
So, he was in violation before, it would appear. Keith H99 (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most countries other than America use "British English" date formatting! America is the unusual one here. Given America was not the only participant in these actions, there is no problem with using this format. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all (or perhaps merge all to a list -- The question of date format is not one for AFD discussions. These are minor naval engagements which would be (except 1914, which should be merged somewhere else) better included in a single list, since there is little worth saying about each. If we were to have the equivalent for WWII, we would have an article on the sinking of every one of the 100s (even 1000s) of merchant ships sunk by U-boats, which is not a viable project. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 22:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SunShare

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

None of the references meet WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability and I'm unable to find anything that does HighKing++ 20:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 only outright delete came from John Pack Lambert using a rationale that was comprehensively rejected in a RFC. Whatever the merits of that argument, it cannot be said to be an argument from policy. A redirect was suggested to 1895 St. Louis Browns season but that has not had much traction, and in any case, more information in sources has been pointed to during this discussion making a merge less managable. SpinningSpark 12:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Fagin (baseball)

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

non-notable one-gamer from the 19th-century. No birth date, no death date, no throwing stance, no batting stance (which are not barriers to notability themselves), but no WP:SIGCOV. Only mention I could find was in The Rank and File book, which says his first name is not known definitively, and his first name might be Fred. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep.. someone is clearly trying to make a point with all these targeting of 19th century baseball figures... but these people are still notable. Spanneraol (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here is the write-up from The Cincinnati Enquirer on Fagin's lone game on June 25, 1895 (including a brutal four errors). This supports the claim that he was a member of the Cincinnati Shamrocks, (apparently "well-known," and "popular," but to what degree, it's uncertain for now) but I don't see a mention of his first name here, or in a few other summaries of this game. I did, however, find a Joe Fagin catching for the Manhattans of Cincinnati in 1894. Apparently, he signed to appear with the Atlantas, but apparently had reservations about both playing there and going pro. So I would lean on this being the same player for the Browns the following year. Penale52 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is high time we tightened baseball notability and started requiring multiple games played in the leagues where we treat every person who played in them as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#RfC_on_WP:NFOOTY_criteria_being_changed proposed changing NFOOTY from at least one game played to at least three games played, and it went down in flames. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which was an under publicized discussion. The discussion should have been notified onto deletion discussions related to footballers so people who have a general interest in the matter were better able to find out about it. This is the first I have seen any indication of it. However even the closer stated that the guidelines as present do not prevent deleting articles for which there is inadequate sourcing. It is time for Wikipedia to stop trying to be the sports Wikia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Also per NBASE and Spanneraol. Under the rationale by the nominator, a great many 19th century baseball players would be deleted (white, male, unknown batting and throwing information, lack of contemporary coverage unearthed from 130+ years ago). Neonblak talk - 15:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on Newspapers.com findings, which imply that there was more coverage that hasn't been salvaged from the 19th century. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG as well as NBASE. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per NBASE. Rlendog (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plus it took me about 10 seconds on newspapers.com to find this and this, and newspapers.com hardly has a complete inventory of 19th century newspapers. Rlendog (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Baseball players are presumed notable if they have played in major leagues per WP:NBASE. With greatest respect to the nominator, more care needs to be taken when nominating. There are a few baseball players nominated for deletion when (in my view) no valid ground for deletion exists. I vote for many articles to be deleted for not being notable however care must be taken with older articles and those subjects where coverage is limited due to their age/whether different guidelines apply due to their field. Such-change47 (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1895 St. Louis Browns season as an ATD. This isn't close. We have nothing in the way of suitable, in depth sources to write a biography of the chap from. I find it surprising that the argument that he meets NBASE is even being made - I thought we'd moved on from the era of technical passes of sports notability guidelines without in depth sources being acceptable. There's an ATD - we should use it rather than delete; a note can be added on the roster to summarise everything we know about the chap and his baseball career. Both sentences should fit in a note without a problem. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: Not convinced by the newspapers.com sources, almost all of which are either routine or give no SIGCOV. However, outright deletion is not a good idea. Is there a good redirect target like a list? Curbon7 (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YugabyteDB

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

Not enough notability shown. Unambiguous advert. Tame (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tame Why is this not notable? There are three companies in the NewSQL/Distributed SQL database market. These are TiDB, Cockroach and Yugabyte. The Cockroach page has fewer references, is mainly marketing and doesn't show why it is notable The TiDB page has references almost exclusively back to the vendors site and is basically a list of features they want to push The former YugabyteDB page that was taken down was nothing to do with me and was clearly written from marketing material however I believe that what I have written covers the topic seriously and with relevant references for a fast growing $1Bn company - Please look at https://db-engines.com/en/ranking to see Cockroach at position 58, TiDB at 95 and Yugabyte at 121 of 351 databases and many of the database entries below in the ranking page have wikipedia entries

I am happy to add any content that you think will demonstrate this to be more notable - I have already added the rapid funding rounds and growth and will add anything else you suggest. Datamgmt (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datamgmt (talk • contribs) 01:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: (on balance at present with possible need to WP:STUBIFY) Nominator has indicated they feel not enough notability is shown which I take to mean they believe product is notable. And it isn't an unambiguous advert to me as I which to know the products capability. That says there is a horrible apparent lack of sourcing on some sections. May need to be stubified and I'd like [[User:|Datamgmt]] to produce, per WP:THREE, the three best WP:RS sources. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Since nomination I have found the time to add another 30 references in most sections, however that work needs to continue. A special call out to Djm-leighpark for pointing out that it is the references that would help make the product more notable. These additional references mean that at the time of writing there are 7 academic publications, 27 news sources 9 general web pages and 20 from the product page (up from zero as they refer to specific features - in the same way as the TiDB website does - I originally omitted these as I was trying to find extra references for absolutely everything - however when it comes to some of the descriptions of how it functions they can only be found on the company pages 'More citations needed' and/or 'incubation' may have been more appropriate tags as I have clearly been working on it regularly as time allows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datamgmt (talk • contribs) 17:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Fentress

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

So Fentress was on the US Field Hockey team at the 1936 Olympics, they were elimanated well before even coming close to earning a medal. We have ruled that only those who won medals at the olympics are default notable. I did a lot of searching for Fentress. I was able to find this link [2] which announces his birth, and makes the claim that his birth in 1913 made his father who was a member of the Princeton Class of 1901 the member of that class with the most children, with a total of 5 children. Even if that is true, and the wording suggests they do not actually know for sure it was true, it is not even remotely close to making Fentress himself notable, nor his father. I also came across a Princeton alumni publication article (well brief mention) naming Fentress as one of three Princeton Grads who were now in some way connected with the Berkshire School. I also came across sources like this which name his an an olympic participant [3] but do not seem to say anything of substance. The source that we have at present in the article is the type of extremely broad soarce that seeks to captrue everything and thus inclusion in it is not a sign of notability. I found this [4] mention from the Princeton Alumni Weekly, which amounts to 1 sentance saying he is the only participant at the 1936 olympics who was an undergrad at Prinecton in the 1935-1936 season. Alumni weekly's fail indepdent criteria when they are covering alumni of the institution, and a one sentence mention like that is not going to be enough to pass the substantial prong in the 5 prongs of GNG even if it passed all the others. This guy was a non-notable member of the field hockey team, that had a non-notable performance at the 1936 olympics. There is no way to find that Fentress is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Blue Beetle enemies. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reach (comics)

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

Fictional race that fails WP:GNG. There doesn't seem to be any coverage in sources apart from plot information and trivial mentions. Avilich (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Grover

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

Possible WP:AUTOBIO. Most sources are either WP:PASSING mentions or don't mention the subject at all. PROD tag was removed by the page's author. - Eureka Lott 18:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the only leagues that give a presumption of notability in WP:NGRIDIRON are the NFL, AFL (1960s), USFL (1980s), CFL, and AAFC. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pockanchery Chandu Vaidyar

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

No significant coverage. The one source that it has is a dead link to an unreliable reference. SL93 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear, and sourcing is anemic. BD2412 T 04:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hamara Hind

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

The only nice source this has is from Daily Excelsior but that doesn't help it pass the WP:NWEB criteria. It doesn't pass WP:GNG and there's no indication towards WP:NNEWSPAPER. I tried a BEFORE in Urdu language and couldn't find anything to help this article. Comments! ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Was accepted under WP:NMEDIA but I see why nom would prefer WP:NWEB since they were still planning to go in print. However, DD News (government website) and Daijiworld Media (identified as a WP:RS on the noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_36#daijiworld.com) along with Daily Excelsior as identified by the nom should be enough to meet GNG. Also to closing admin, the nom is outcome of existing ANI issue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Unhealthy_stalking_(hounding?)_by_another_editor) so comments and intentions behind should be weighed accordingly. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    well, Arza Safiya's article from Daijiworld Media looks fine, and the one from DE is also okay. The governmental source you pointed to, is inaccessible. These articles put together don't make much WP:SIGCOV to meet GNG. Could you please explain why do you think this meets NMEDIA because I really don't see any points being met. I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination if I'm convinced by your argument. Otherwise let this remain open to the community for discussion. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being open to discussion. WP:NMEDIA is a convoluted criteria to begin with. And editors would pick and choose the parts that appeal to them (like we end up doing in WP:CORPDEPTH). NMEDIA goes till the point to say ‘’The basic claim of notability must be verifiable in at least one reliable source which is independent of the topic itself before the presumption of notability is granted’’ We surely have more than 1. But, my reasons were different. First was C5 ‘'are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets’' since they are other major Urdu newspapers in News Live (Indian TV channel) source (also seems a decent WP:RS but not enough material for GNG) and other was C4, are ‘frequently cited by other reliable sources’ like Daijiworld Media, Daily Excelsior , DD News and News Live (Indian TV channel). I see DD is not working anymore but as per WP:KDL, such links are still useful and might come back to life again. Which means we can’t deter from the fact that it was cited by the government news channel of the country. With this, I also felt that there might be more in print since Urdu, from what I know, is bigger in the traditional print industry as opposed to online. Also, since they have an E-paper, they would be counted under WP:NMEDIA since Epapers are newspapers (read in some thread I can’t recall). Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. But where has this source been "frequently cited"? If two sources (I'm not able to access the third, and we don't know what and how much content is there) discuss them for something once, how does that become a "frequent citation"? "A media outlet is presumed notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content" How do we claim that the Hamara Hind is meeting #5 which says "are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets", when we don't have at least the three best sources? I'm now leaving this to be analyzed by other Wikipedians! ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Depends how you define frequently. What you have quoted and aspect of three best sources is the GNG part of NMEDIA. I am referring to other special criteria. Like I said, we will pick and choose what parts of guideline appeal to us and how we see them. Yes, let others weigh in. Thank you. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Nomadicghumakkad, the subject having enough citations to claims notability. DMySon (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. There is no reasonable claim to meeting GNG or NWEB. One claim to fame can be that the owners of this newspaper were castigated for engaging in a giant pro-India disinformation campaign (1, 2) using shadowy newspapers etc. but notability is not inherited. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Paid news is a menace in India and articles like the one over News Live TV and Daily Excelsior with no authors are obviously advertisements. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as explained above. DE website has many regular news articles which have byline By Daily Excelsior. DD news headline gives an indication that it was an in-depth article.Timetraveller80 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet any notability criteria. Getting into two news pieces doesn't mean that the subject has been frequently cited. It doesn't meet WP:NMEDIA. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 17:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the fact that this is owned by the Srivastava Group which is known for owning a network of fake news websites. The three "citations" read like blatant ads and what they say is not consistent with what RS has reported about the group. I'd take the DD deadlink with a bucket of salt. See, a related nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Delhi Times (newspaper). Also, note the editor in chief Ankit Srivastava is listed as the editor in chief of the New Delhi Times as well, how many "newspapers" is this guy the editor of again? Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be yet another fake media outlet by Srivastava Group. See this article for a little back information. --SVTCobra 20:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See https://www.disinfo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/20191213_InfluencingPolicymakers-with-Fake-media-outlets.pdf for more info on this disinformation hoax.-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 00:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a fake media outlet by Srivastava Group. It is a disinformation and not a notable topic. Venkat TL (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per editors who have shown this to be a fake media outlet. Skyerise (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not sure what to make of this one. A lot of the arguments above are essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and the sources cited don't seem to mention this specific website. So given that nothing is proven there seem to be basically two possibilities here: it's a legitimate website, in which case WP:NMEDIA guidelines apply and it may pass; or it's a fake media outlet, in which case WP:GNG would apply if there is significant coverage of this specific site, and there doesn't seem to be. I'd suggest redirecting to the Srivastava Group article, except there doesn't seem to be one (arguably there could be one, the company itself seems to be well covered in decidedly non-PR reporting). Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From sources, this is a fake media site, the info on the wiki page is false, and it is without coverage other than general coverage of the Srivastava Group. I could see this being redirected to Fake_news_in_India#Fake_news_against_Pakistan. But, to me, deletion seems the best route as there's not coverage of the Hamara Hind specifically. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a source that specifically mentions this site, by name, as one of the fake sites in question, or states that every site owned by the company is a hoax? If not, then the burden of proof has not been met. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources that have covered the company have stated that around 265 fake sites were identified, they don't provide coverage to every single one of them but have not noted that the company operates any legitimate news organisation. Also WP:NMEDIA would still apply for disinformation websites, the arguement for deletion is that the article is a hoax as it is pretending to be a legitimate newspaper and has no independent coverage. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To that end, it has been found that the Srivastava network's sites republishes (plagiarizes) a bunch of actual news from around the world so they can slip in their fake news stories less conspicuously and have more content. Meanwhile, on-wiki it has been alleged there are bad actors operating on Wikipedia attempting to further legitimize Srivastava and its sites. One may already have been identified. --SVTCobra 14:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (and rewrite) or merge to an article about the Srivastava Group. we need to cover fake news sites comprehensively, because it's here people will look for authentic information. But this can probably be done in a combination article for the websites of the Group, with redirects from alll of their titles. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG speaking for myself, elaborating on my delete reason, the article is fit case for WP:TNT as it simply elaborates the fake facade of the fake site. I do agree that this page must be covered in a short para at Srivastava Group page, but it will have to be written from the scratch. There is nothing usable in this page under AfD. Venkat TL (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be happy with a redirect to Fake news in India#Fake news against Pakistan. --SVTCobra 22:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • SVTCobra, I would say this should be redirected only after deleting this article first. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am convinced that it's a disinformation as well as a fake media outlet and a hoax. Does not pass WP:GNG. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article doesn't meet any notability criteria. This doesn't pass WP:GNG. And by getting into two news pieces doesn't mean that the subject has been frequently cited. It doesn't meet WP:NMEDIA. GaffarSofi96 (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage is insufficient to establish that WP:GNG is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks coverage from notable/reliable independent news source. Not notable. It will fail to meet WP:GNG. VincentGod11 (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to subsequent creation of a redirect. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Nadia riots

AfDs for this article:
2015 Nadia riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS TrangaBellam (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously this can't be deleted, according to last nomination. Five people were killed in a communal clash. This was not normal crime like bank robbery. It was mentioned in first nomination that vernacular media sources are also important. This article mentions that total five people died[1], (as one person succumbed to injuries).Oneindia source mentions that it was the worst communal riots in recent times (2015). They have posted pictures of the riot, which are not fake. In 2017, this riot was discussed among politicians[2]. This may not be that neutral party statement, but it was published two years after the riot by a reliable source. Another 2017 article discusses this riot[3]. Let it remain as a stub article. The ITV Network (India) source was removed from the article along with Oneindia source. Yelena Vasilisa Marya (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The case of selective silence and its steep costs".
  2. ^ "RSS hits Mamata Banerjee, says Trinamool promoting 'jihadi activities' in West Bengal".
  3. ^ "A rong too many: Mamata is turning Bengali into medium of destruction".
  • Your first line does not make sense since articles are routinely deleted in 2nd or 3rd nominations but I understand that you are a new editor. Coming to your sources:
    Your first source is a op-ed from a media-outlet, that routinely copies our content.
    Your second source (Financial Express) does not support that the riot was "discussed" in 2017 among politicians: it notes a resolution from a right-nationalist party to the effect that three were killed in the Nadia’s Juranpur itself. [Doesn't this contradict your claim that five people died? This is far from SIGCOV, anyways.]
    Your third source is again an op-ed over a news-portal that has been deemed to be unreliable by the community.
    You cannot derive notability from op-eds over little-known publications. There is no evidence of any kind that the subject has any kind of lasting significance exceeding a news-cycle, of which the OneIndia article was a part.
    About 5 years ago, an administrator wrote that the community appears to dislike Oneindia as a reference.
    The Hindu is widely accepted to be the most trusted newspaper for India, by community consensus. Their only coverage of the riots was on the day it happened and spanned three paragraphs. This is a textbook application of NOTNEWS. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Oneindia article is written by a journalist named Vicky Nanjappa. He has a verified twitter account @vickynanjappa. The article is written by him by visiting the place and doesn't look like copied from other websites. --Yelena Vasilisa Marya (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How does that answer any of my queries or those, raised by V93, Tayi, and AryKun? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sustained coverage over at least two years but sources that seem reliable (well, are not listed as unreliable). Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hughesdarren See my reply to YVM. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is near no coverage in reliable sources let alone one that is significant, sustained or lasting. The Hindu has an initial news report on it with no follow up and no other mainstream newspaper either regional or national has covered it to the point that we have a verifiability issue. Note that the Financial Express article, which is not about the clash and only gives a passing mention to it, doesn't even confirm whether it occurred or not when it states that "... [a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh resolution] also claims that the six men were killed by jihadis in the period of 2014-17 out of which three were killed in the Nadia’s Juranpur ..." Wikipedia articles are not written based on whatever junk one can find on the internet and it's not possible to list all unreliable sources that exist. Take for instance, DailyO which is a user-generated site, where one can submit an article and have it posed or NewsX (i.e ITV Network) which is a fringey source seeped in conspiratorial claims that has engaged in deliberate fabrications on multiple occasions (see [6], [7], [8]). OneIndia is at best a prolific content farm. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've very undecided about this. The piece in The Hindu is substantive, and I would expect that where one such piece was written, others would be, too. On the face of it, a riot with four deaths isn't trivial. I'm struggling to find any other sources that are reliable, however. Even this, in The Wire, only links to the Hindu piece; it provides no additional coverage. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A three paragraph report is "substantive"?
    The article on bn.wiki says, নিম্নবর্ণের হিন্দু ও মুসলমানের সাথে সংঘটিত হওয়ার জন্য দাঙ্গাটিকে কোন সংবাদ মাধ্যম ও রাজনৈতিক নেতা বিশেষ গুরুত্ব প্রদান করে নাই। [Unsourced] which machine-translates to No media or political leader paid much attention to the riots as they took place against lower caste Hindus and Muslims. It might or might not be true.
    A search in GNews/Google for "নদিয়া" + "দাঙ্গা" + "২০১৫" throws no relevant result. This is the frontpage of Anandabazar Patrika—a Bengali language newspaper, mentioned by Wikipedia to have a circulation of 1 million copies as of December 2019—on the day after the riot; if Google Translate is not wrong, there is nothing on the riots. Nothing in Sangbad Pratidin, mentioned as a competitor of Anandabazar Patrika. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, a three-paragraph report is substantive. It's the sort of coverage I would expect to see on a topic that's notable enough for a perma stub but nothing else. The trouble is the absence of other coverage, as you document, which makes me wonder a little at the accuracy of the Hindu article; but that's a separate issue. A single article isn't enough for GNG, so I guess I'm a weak delete at this point. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete A riot that killed 4 people is decidedly not usual, but no coverage beyond The Hindu article (the other sources are just passing mentions that also say allegedly). AryKun (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@7&6=thirteen The tolerance of Wikipedia users for non notable article has changed. Please provide valid policy or sources to claim notability. Not WP:ITSNOTABLE Venkat TL (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether there are reliable sources. That they are not in the article is not dispositive under WP:GNG and WP:Before. Even as we speak, sources are being removed from added to this article. Many of them were previously deleted. The lack of non-English speaking editors is a systemic problem. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sagacity. Unless I had come across you, I won't have known that the larger question at an AfD is about whether there are reliable sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13, what do you mean, Even as we speak, sources are being removed? The article's only been edited once—which didn't even touch on sourcing—since this nomination was filed nearly three weeks ago. SN54129 15:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added and restored sources. Article is not what it was when nominated for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A communal clash involving the deaths of 4 people would normally be notable... however there isn't the RS to support it, or even verify what happened. I'd be happy to change my vote if more RS came to light. Also lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of sustained coverage.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It exists. Sources in the article are clear. Rewriting history to erase this is not something to be fostered. 16:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7&6=thirteen (talk • contribs) 16:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITEXISTS :) SN54129 16:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The riot was notable enough with media coverage. Even though the riot only killed 4 people, its still notable and I can find sources that prove it. The riots are more notable then like 494k of the wiki articles. HelpingWorld (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITEXISTS :) TrangaBellam (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per . 7&6=thirteen and per WP:NEXIST the coverage in the local Bengali language has not been looked up.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment TrangaBellam saying he didn't find Bengali links through google searching the name with Bengali letters. Actually every Bengali printed articles, news, don't have online version. Indian Bengali, Odiya, Assamese have online version of all articles, unless their circulation is huge as Anandabazar Patrika. I once commented how notable Bengali movie chracater actors, who acted before 1990, don't have much online sources, even though they regularly appear in printed copies Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soumitra Bannerjee. Bengali magazines don't create online version of evrything. If you purchase Bengali newspapers from retail magazine stores or newspaper boys, you will find many news, articles, which will never appear online. 42.105.5.163 (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? This is 2015; not 1990. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked Bureau Records of top 10 newspapers of West Bengal and every newspaper has a website since before 2010. Archives are available since 2013 or so. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know that these are relevant. But they had been linked earlier in this discussion. Somebody thought themm relevant. And my lack of local knowledge and perspective (don't have the cultural lay of the land) limits my understanding. A man has got to know his limitations. — Dirty Harry
  • RSS hits Mamata Banerjee, says Trinamool promoting ‘jihadi activities’ in West Bengal:After BJP’s landslide victory in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, it is now virtually a master of the North, except Punjab of course, and only East and South remain a challenge. FE Online March 21, 2017
  • Majumder, Abhijit A rong too many: Mamata is turning Bengali into medium of destruction Now her government is dropping the word Ram from textbooks. 15-01-2017
Bare links are deceptive.
In any event, stripping the article of sources, and then nominating it for deletion, tends to make this a self fulfilling prophecy, IMO. But YMMV. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Competence is required. I as well Tayi have discussed the FE source. As we have, the DailyO source, which has been deemed as unreliable by the community. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize you've posted several patently unreliable sources, listed several sources that are literally passing mentions, and reinstated copyright violations into the article? I'm willing to be persuaded here, but spamming references with no regard for quality or substance is counter-productive. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I copy edited out whatever copyright violations there may have been. You have stated your position as to the reliability of the sources. The article and sources can stand or fall on their merits, including your arguments. You do realize that a lot of those articles discuss the incident, and they are WP:RS. E.g, Times of India Just suggesting. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this edit is the one you're referring to, it's not helping; we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia article, not an editorial? Also; the Times of India source is dead, and contributes nothing to the article (the link you've added is from 2003!); and is certainly not in the obviously reliable category, per WP:RSP. The IBTimes story is simply repackaging a story from the World Hindu News, the reliability of which is quite questionable. If you want to make a sober case for notability, I do not mind at all; I was undecided initially, and my !vote is still a weak delete. But there's a lack of due diligence here which is bothersome. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you have forgotten WP:Linkrot. I presume the link was in place when it was originally cited. Links sometimes disappear; sometimes their content mutates. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I presume it was, too, but absent evidence of its contents it does not contribute toward notability. Also, is there a reason you do not WP:INDENT your posts? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen, The Times of India article is not a dead link which I do not know why you have marked as dead in Special:Diff/1067080844 but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the subject of the article. It's from 2003 and quite clearly about a different incident, what you are doing here is called refbombing. Tayi Arajakate Talk 23:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not dead, and has not changed since it was originally cited, then it is not dead. It is true that the present link is not pertinent. But this link appeared to be about the area, and I assumed it had morphed. If not, then it should be deleted. Article improvement is our shared goal. You have misinterpreted what I was doing. Improve the article please. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't changed, that's what it always was. It was originally cited for the line "Nadia has seen communal tensions in the past" as a superflous add on, which is OR in this case anyways. I've already tried to improve this article but there is a distinct lack of reliable sources for one to be able to do so. Tayi Arajakate Talk 02:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep http://www.ibtimes.co.in/west-bengal-4-killed-over-8-injured-communal-clashes-nadia-district-631370 is a reliable source covering this. It was removed from the article along with other references by the editor who then nominated this for deletion. https://www.oneindia.com/india/nadia-riots-scale-destruction-immense-as-police-study-pattern-1739636.html seems like a reliable source and gives significant coverage of this. Other sources have been found. Dream Focus 23:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These articles do not address the concern about WP:SUSTAINED. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But they do satisfy the canvassing aspect MrsSnoozyTurtleOnel5969 TT me 02:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not reliable source and in fact listed as such at WP:IBTIMES and WP:ICTFSOURCES respectively. Tayi Arajakate Talk 03:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oneindia.com is a reliable source Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_183#Oneindia.com and gives this significant coverage. The Hindu is a reliable source and covers it at [9]. Dream Focus 04:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is hardly a robust discussion, is it? A handful editors went "seems reliable". There are multiple others similar sections where editors have questioned its reliability, for example here, here or here. It largely has not seen much of a centralised discussion. This is a website with no listed editorial policy, has 9 authors and advertises itself as one that "churns out around 1000 articles a day and has industry best engagement metrics", i.e a SEO spam site which would be a textbook example of a questionable source with no meaningful editorial oversight. Its parent website is blacklisted at present for similar issues. But if that doesn't convince you and you want to insist on it, we can take it to RSN.
As I have already stated, The Hindu is the only reliable source that has reported anything on this incident but that is clearly insufficient. Tayi Arajakate Talk 03:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note List of riots in India already list this and others. Since there isn't much to write about, it can be changed to a redirect/merge there. Dream Focus 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly does not meet the sustained qualification to take it out of WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 TT me 02:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Juranpur, Nadia. A noteworthy event within the context of the history of the village where it occurred, no need for anything beyond that. BD2412 T 04:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Juranpur, Nadia. Change List of riots in India with a blue link to the sub-section the village. I see the arguments for keep and delete, but this is on the line, it's not worth staking a claim when the content can be preserved anyway.-- GreenC 19:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Juranpur, Nadia. I agree with GreenC. Dream Focus 13:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Comment: I belong from this district and I came to this page when going through Nadia related topics. I would say the term "riot" does not apply here and it was just a political agenda. Hindu-Muslims-Christians have been living here peacefully for a long time until a few so called nationalist party tried to create religious enmity here. The irony here is the reference no. 1 which is a piece written by Mr. Garga Chattaerjee when he was a BJP supporter and now he is a TMC supporter and runs his own organization "Bangla Pokkho" (Bengali First) yet another bengali nationalist organization that supports only Bengali people irrespective of religions. How this can be used as a reference here?
Sources: https://www.newslaundry.com/2021/05/05/violence-but-not-communal-bjp-pushes-misinformation-campaign-in-bengal, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/muslim-youth-lynched-in-west-bengal/article28235901.ece, https://www.thehindu.com/elections/west-bengal-assembly/csds-lokniti-survey-the-limits-to-polarisation-in-bengal/article34494009.ece, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/26/india-soul-at-stake-west-bengalis-vote-in-divisive-election-modi-bjp
Regards, Sadhan Paul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4060:219:62bd:8d65:5d6f:678e:de4f (talk) 2022-01-23T17:28:38 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Juranpur, Nadia per GreenC and DF since there isn't enough references about it to justify a stand alone article. Also, maybe don't refer to it as a riot per the last comment. From what I can tell the references refer to it as a "communal clash." Whatever that means. Really, I have zero clue what a "communal clash" is. Except that it's probably not a riot. Maybe a gang fight? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd point out one last thing that has gotten overlooked here in ARS's attempts to "save" an article which makes a merge and/or a redirect as an alternative to deletion, as problematic as keeping the article. There is a verifiability issue here.
The sources whether reliable or unreliable, contain details that contradict each other. Communal incidents are also not something that gets marginal coverage in India so this is far from normal. Of the two unambiguously reliable sources, one of them (The Hindu article) is within the 24 hour news cycle, solely sourced to an unnamed official and has no follow-up, the other one (The Financial Express article) gives it a very brief mention and frames the incident as a claim rather than as a fact. Digging a bit taking cue from the IP's comment above, there was a similar incident in a neighbouring district an year later which got coverage from dubious sources that miscontruted it as a communal riot, this was fact checked later (see [10]) but that didn't happen here so here we are where it isn't clear what if anything has happened here. Tayi Arajakate Talk 03:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cabarrus County Schools#JN Fries Magnet School. MBisanz talk 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JN Fries Magnet School

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

Contested prod. Lack of in-depth sigcov to meet GNG. There is nothing notable about this middle school in the article. The first ref is routine local coverage of about appointment of a principal. Ref2 is not independent. Ref3 is a minor mention in a general article. Searching finds typical directory-type listings. MB 16:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TCS4

TCS4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As the article freely admits, this upcoming album has no known track list or release date, and despite some brief reports on how the band has teased a near-future release, there is no verifiable info about the album itself. This violates WP:FUTUREALBUM; see also the traditional community attitudes toward upcoming albums at WP:HAMMER. Also, I highly doubt that the title of the album will be "TCS4", because that reflects the band's initials and they are simply using that as a social media tag. The fact that the band is working on new stuff can be mentioned at their article until there is something to work with for an album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:FUTUREALBUM. We don't even have any confirmation yet that there will be an album - it's just guesswork based on one hashtag. The article is entirely based on speculation not corroborated by any of the the sources... there's no proof that "High" will be on the album, no proof the song will feature the Kid Laroi, no title (as stated above, using the artist's initials is a standard placeholder until the actual title is announced), no release date, no confirmed songs, no artwork (a purple square is being used because the artist changed their social media background to this colour)... in short, at present there's no confirmed information beyond "a song will be released at some unspecified date in the future". A redirect is pointless considering this is almost certainly not going to be the final title, and it's not an obvious search term for the group. Richard3120 (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So vague as to be completely unnotable, even as a rumor. Also, per FUTUREALBUM. Nate • (chatter) 00:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:FUTUREALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above FUTUREALBUM discussion. Even if it were definite that there would be an album, this would be WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 TT me 16:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:FUTUREALBUM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Cook (footballer, born 1885)

James Cook (footballer, born 1885) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets NFOOTBALL with multiple appearances in WP:FPL. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 16:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can understand the assessment for this AfD, however this player was around when the Scottish league was fully pro. When there are eight games he played for Grimsby when they were in the league, well that clearly shows he more than easily passes WP:NFOOTBALL. I am sure there is more to find to improve the article if people go looking. Govvy (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'. Meets NFOOTY with professional appearances.--Mvqr (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no WP:SIGCOV shown, non-notable footballer. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. Even if NFOOTY might be met, per WP:SNG, articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found. Pilaz (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suppose this is him, mentioned as emigrating to Chicago. I also found some traces in local papers at the BNA, but they all just said 'Grimsby sign winger from Kilbirnie called James Cook' - that was pretty much it. His absence from An Alphabet of the Celts means we can be reasonably certain he never appeared in a first team match for Celtic in the league or cup. So we're a distance short of WP:GNG. In terms of WP:NFOOTBALL, it's frustrating to see false claims that the Football Leagues in England and Scotland were "fully professional" back then. Emphatically, they were not. The facts are well established and it's bordering on disingenuous and/or tendentious editing to keep lying about it in these discussions. This guy's trajectory (Greenock, Grimsby, Plymouth, Hull) says to me he had some sort of maritime occupation and played semi-pro soccer in his spare time: not notable. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are lots of early players missing from the Celtic records. Andrew Watson (footballer, born 1856) Is a good example of lots of material about his history found later a long time after his death. I can't see how this can't be done with this player. It's not just about web searches, but actually going to find material in those places where he played. Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it isn't there to find. Govvy (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Govvy, I find that a fanciful proposition because there seem to be very detailed records of Celtic's matches from that season. I mean, IF somebody did take it upon themselves to do that sort of original research, found some level of coverage that had somehow eluded everyone else, then got it published in a reliable source, then it might have some bearing here. Until then it's just speculation. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very detailed? The Celtic Wiki not only fails RS, but isn't detailed what so ever! In fact it missing a lot of information. 1900–01 Celtic F.C. season Has more info. :/ You really do bemuse me at times. Govvy (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They've got line-ups for every game that season, Govvy, backed in most cases by contemporary newspaper reports. They even list a friendly against Motherwell with all trialists and their Junior clubs named! On other pages they list club historians Pat Woods, David Potter, Tom Campbell etc. etc. fellas who've churned out books after books covering all this stuff in forensic detail. Anyway, there's only me and Nfitz who have bothered to look for any sources at all on this guy. Everyone else has made a lazy gesture towards WP:MUSTBESOURCES, based on a false idea that the article meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given that he was only at Celtic (according to the article) for months during 1900 - at the age of 15, then presumably this was more of an academy thing. His professional appearances are when he was in his 20s. Bit of a red herring. Great find Daz. With that, I can located his 1971 obituary in the Chicago Tribune - which is an short article in itself, unlike most of those who died that day. Nfitz (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look I do think it's very interesting (and respect to you Nfitz for actually finding some sources). But we're well into WP:OR territory here, using this sort of triangulation to cobble together a functional article out of scraps which fall well short of WP:SIGCOV. The 'news piece' in the Scottish Referee is 67 words long. Does no-one think it's curious that the guy's own obituary doesn't even mention his allegedly notable football career? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Lack of online sources is not enough to delete a footballer with professional appearances. --Assyrtiko (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Nominator Fails GNG with nearly zero sources as stated above. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't really need to add a delete !vote if you are the nominator, that's assumed from the fact that you nominated it....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above, meeting NFOOTY. Also, seems to be a news piece about him on page 6 of the 30 August 1909 edition of the Scottish Referee according to the British Newspaper Archive. Does anyone have access? Nfitz (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: 15 pro appearances is considerable enough that sources probably exist. Curbon7 (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Computational and Statistical Genetics

Computational and Statistical Genetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • It seems to be a dupe of Bioinformatics, Computational biology, and/or Computational genomics.
  • The latter two are the only mainspace articles that link to it.
  • The text is virtually unchanged from its original writing in 2013 and requires considerable work.
  • Even if re-written, I don't see benefit in preserving/merging/copying/reusing the text elsewhere.
  • The talk page has one edit, where a reviewer appraised it as C-class.
  • Both the author and reviewer are retired, so I have not attempted to reach them.

We have a consensus on WikiProject Molecular Biology to delete without attempting to merge its content. --Xarm Endris (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 15:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Computational genetics and statistical genetics are somewhat overlapping but separate fields and I see no evidence in a search that "Computational and Statistical Genetics" is an interdisciplinary field notable independent of the component fields. It seems to fail notability and is an unlikely search term. Hence delete. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Mark viking above and per my post on WikiProject Mol Biol, delete IMO given the overlap with computational genomics. Amkilpatrick (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sadly not much that is high enough quality to merge into Computational genomics (mainly referencing and language issues). Normally I'd recomment just coverting to a redirect, but the title is so obscure and pageviews so low that a redirect isn't even particularly useful. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 06:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smartnet

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

I PRODded on the grounds that I was unable to find independent sourcing to meet WP:ORG. @Jim Grisham: contested the PROD, so bringing it here for further discussion. I'm honestly not sure whether this should meet WEB or ORG notability guidelines, but a BEFORE doesn't identify coverage for either. Star Mississippi 14:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - website article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Smartnet is also the name of a Cisco networking product, making searching more challenging. A search turned up PR and incidental mentions for Smartnet and 3d.sk, but no significant WP:RS coverage. Current version is basically a linkfarm.Dialectric (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 01:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DatPiff

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

Non-notable organisation. While there's likely a case to be made that the subject is notable in some fashion, the sources in the article do a spectacularly poor job of showing it, and I'm not finding much beyond passing mentions on Google (string: datpiff). I would love to be happy to be proven wrong about the lack of sources here, but as it sits right now there's nothing to work with. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 11:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep: The site is extremely influential in rap and as such has been covered in non-passing fashion by most of the major music publications that cover rap, more than enough to meet WP:WEBCRIT #1:
    • Pitchfork: https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/768-is-2015-the-end-of-the-golden-era-of-rap-djs/ (Pitchfork's The Pitch section has both essays and reported pieces; this is the latter, and the author is an established rap critic)
    • A longform interview in Complex -- by "longform" here I mean both that there is an editorial component before the actual interview, and an editorial decision to go long on it): https://www.complex.com/music/2019/10/datpiff-niche-interview-kp
    • Another writeup in Complex that is even more emphatic about its notability and influence in the rap world: "It’s impossible to imagine the last decade of rap music without considering the influence of DatPiff." https://www.complex.com/music/2014/12/the-minds-behind-musics-biggest-tech-advances-in-the-last-10-years/marcus-frasier-founder-ceo-of-datpiff
    • Billboard: https://www.billboard.com/music/rb-hip-hop/mixtapes-money-hip-hop-shadow-economy-mainstream-7669109/
    • Spin (a passing mention, but worth noting since it is another established rap critic calling it influential) https://www.spin.com/2013/01/how-free-culture-saved-hip-hop-in-2012/
    • Passion of the Weiss (a rap publication by an established critic/reporter), most is another interview but more than passing: https://www.passionweiss.com/2014/05/16/we-used-to-sell-mixtapes-an-interview-with-kp-reilly-of-datpiff-com/
    • The Forbes article mentioned (Forbes hosts a lot of crap, but this is by a New Yorker journalist): https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhumphrey/2011/08/04/datpiff-how-love-for-mixtapes-grew-to-lil-wayne-levels/?sh=7e57ecaf1ab8
Et cetera. This is the level of notability where I didn't even have to google the site specifically, I just went on all the big music publications and there was coverage in every case. I will add these to the article later. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please and thank you. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Incredibly influential in hip hop music, as demonstrated by Gnomingstuff. It's pretty much a shorthand for "internet mixtape", per Mosi Reeves in Rolling Stone using the phrase "like a relic from the Datpiff era" in the magazine's review of Lil Wayne's Carter V. RoseCherry64 (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon Cooper

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

Non-notable rapper. A fair number of the sources on the article are dead or useless for notability, and I've found nothing usable via a search (string:"Dillon Cooper"). The closest source to usable on the article is the Pigeons and Planes source, and honestly it's probably the best source I can find overall. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 12:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've also tried to find sources. I found and added a few (Vibe is a very short piece, XXL a bare mention, BET a bare mention) and wasn't able to find much. Artist's website doesn't appear to have been updated since 2014, and there doesn't seem to be much else. —valereee (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing anything. valereee (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Early in his career, he got some nice introductory mentions from the reliable Complex ([11]) and Vibe ([12]), but those don't get too far beyond softball interviews, and then his career fizzled out. As the nominator mentioned, the current article is dependent on sources that are either dead or only mentioned him indirectly. Beyond that, I can find nothing beyond a rush of social media promotions from around 2013-16 that called him up-and-coming (ahhh, what couldv'e been...), and none of this adds up to the requirements for a Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Mausert

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

Lawyer associated with ISKCON Hare Krishnas. No asserted notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO, lack of significant coverage in independent source. ISKCON sources are associated with the subject. Tagged for lack of notability since July 2020. A few WP:NOTNEWS articles related to brother's killing were used in last AfD. They do not prove notability. Venkat TL (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MP Xpress

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

Sourced only to a database entry and the official website. A web search only showed fandom wikis and passing mentions, including apparently unrelated entities. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2022 (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 14:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence of notability. Will also require removal from the template. PianoDan (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus to delete all. Ping me if you need to recover content for any reason. Tone 15:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 in home video

2021 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 in home video. This list fails WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTCATALOG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

1971 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1972 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1975 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1976 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1977 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1978 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1979 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1980 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1981 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1982 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1983 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1984 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1985 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1986 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1987 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1988 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1989 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1990 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1991 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1992 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1993 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1994 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1995 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1996 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1997 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1998 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1999 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2000 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2001 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2002 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2003 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2004 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2005 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2006 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2007 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2008 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2009 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2013 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2015 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2016 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2017 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2018 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2019 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2020 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2016 in home video television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2017 in home video television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of years in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment - It's kind of hard to remember this, but home video used to be a really huge thing, with video rental shops in every town, city, and even medium-sized village in most of the western world. My village had three of them by the early 1990's. Billboard used to publish lists of top video sales/rentals, and "top video of the year" sued to be an actual thing that people would actually write about. Looking at potential sources (e.g., this book, this book) well, it seems that a history of the video industry is going to be pretty long... but it's going to end before 2021. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty agnostic on this. I mean there absolutely are sources that discuss the events of, say, 1986 in home video (e.g., 1 and 2). Now maybe I'm just high on nostalgia about going to my local video rental shop to rent Weird Science or Ewoks: The Battle for Endor, but I'm not totally sold that a yearly approach (or maybe a decade-based approach?) is totally out of order for this subject area. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For this to work it would need to be chart based. If there were a solid sales and/or rental charts for home video in various major international markets then that could provide a basis for a article content. These articles are so far from that that I don't think that they would be any help to anybody starting out on such an endeavour. One example of how this might possibly work is something like 2016 in video games although that's not great either. It starts out OK with lists of top games defined by various metrics but then devolves into less discriminate lists later. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that what we need is some kind of WP:LISTN-passing annual chart articles rather than these ones. FOARP (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 15:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as indiscriminate lists. They are far too arbitrary in their inclusion. The fact that only the US and Canada are considered. The fact that each list contains only a tiny fraction of the home videos released in that year. The referencing is poor. For example, the 2016 one is referenced almost entirely to Amazon pages where you can stream and/or buy the videos. It is not clear what the "Box office" figures mean. Home video sales? Including rentals or not? Total revenue including cinema? Across which markets? (US and Canada again, maybe?) To what date? Between WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NLIST I don't think this has a chance. After all, we don't attempt anything like this for things like album releases. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see that List of years in home video has been added. That is a redirect. I don't know if we are allowed to discuss redirects here. Anyway, I'm neutral on that one. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Per year 2022 nomination and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. This is essentially just a list of Amazon links to movie releases that readers can purchase DVD or other media. There is nothing encyclopedic about listing every single home media release that is available in a particular year nor advertising one of the biggest online movie distributors in the world. Ajf773 (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could the nominator also add 2016 in home video television and 2017 in home video television to the discussion as well, they are essentially the same category. Ajf773 (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted. I have no idea how "home video television" is meant to be distinct from "home video" in general. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielRigal: Television series which were released on home video, rather than movies. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all It's not unreasonable to look at List of American films of 2017 and presume that most would be released on home video that year or the following year. I don't see the value in of a directory compiling the dates of release on VHS, DVD, or Blu-ray. The amount made at box office is not even relevant to home video... Reywas92Talk 20:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Almost comically outdated— I mean, even by the time WP was launched in 2001 home video was quickly losing its novelty status. By now we might as well be listing “[year] in Amazon Prime streaming”. Dronebogus (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 in home video, they lack references supporting that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 in home video, it's comical it goes back to 71'.U683708 (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all sadly I agree, I will miss these pages but I’m gonna move on from these pages Esaïe Prickett (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I prefer to have all of these pages on this site so I can look at the movies and shows that have been released on those dates. 24.159.56.127 (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, WP:NOTCATALOG. Pikavoom Talk 07:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Happy to delete. Probably some general history article combined with annual chart-articles is needed to cover this rather than these indiscriminate articles, this is a WP:TNT case. FOARP (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per WP:NOTCATALOG. Onel5969 TT me 11:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salvage certain parts -- I think salvaging the actual historical stuff, that isn't just releases, is worth doing into some sort of History of home video article. I glanced at 1980, and they had noted when Disney entered the home video market, etc. This stuff strikes me as encyclopedic. So I would say that those sections (at least parts of them) might be worth saving and consolidating into one larger historical overview, while getting rid of the lists themselves. matt91486 (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to use such a dismissive sounding ref, but why not WP:DOIT then? Dronebogus (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspect that we already have most of it covered already but if anything is not already included in the History section of Home video then it could be added there. I'm doubtful as to whether there is enough to justify spinning that out as a separate article. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps that's more of a time commitment than I can personally make to Wikipedia at this time. matt91486 (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, as much as I like these pages I'll have to admit they're not really that great. The 90s ones don't even have all of the titles while the 2010s have way too many. Do we really need to know exactly when Big Ass Spider! got onto home video? Does anyone care enough about that film to warrant its inclusion? I'd say this is more suited for Moviepedia. MightyArms (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and WP:IINFO. Also, reliable sources within these nominated pages fail WP:V (in particular especially WP:RSPAMAZON and WP:RSP/BLURAY). Chompy Ace 00:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all , I'm a common wikipedia user and these pages have been useful forever. I am who wikipedia was created for. Also I hate deletionists.
  • Snow delete all per the same reason I gave in the first AfD. Plus what everyone else has said here and the fact that unless something extremely drastic happens before this closes there's literally zero way this close any other way then delete. P.S. way to put the deletionists in their places by voting keep on an AfD that has almost zero chance of being kept. Just an FYI, but there's plenty of AfDs out there with less clear outcomes that could use more opinions if you really care about articles being kept. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. In general, certain years like 2006 tend to receive far too much speculation from certain sectors of folk. Without a rigorous verification system in place, these go unchecked allowing for massive amounts of citogenesis. Perhaps this could be of use to another website, but it's far too niche and those that are into it fixate on certain releases a bit too much. In general, this whole section (at least in the last few years) reeks of WP:CRUFT. And this is coming from an insider who enjoys collecting these releases as well as expanded parts of the various video format articles like DVD and DIVX. While it is an interesting topic, in this day and age where home video is all but a niche community and some members of said community leave things unchecked, it's time to move on before the misinformation begins to circulate for too long. TheBuddy92 (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Couldn't have said it better myself. MightyArms (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NOTCATALOG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Combining dimensions

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

I am unconvinced that "combining dimensions" is really a coherent concept as such. My own research has mainly come up with usage from data mining and database refactoring, which would possibly merit a redirect to Dimensionality reduction, but that has nothing to do with what is described in this unsourced stub. Felix QW (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Felix QW (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just a phrase without any clear referent. But if we end up disambiguating or redirecting, one potential target would be Embedding#Topology_and_geometry or something like that, based on the content that's there now. Danstronger (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. PianoDan (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. There is definitely something to be said about visualizing high-dimensional data by somehow projecting to lower-dimensional spaces, but this article and its title are of no use in saying it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The idea behind it is notable, but my search showed zero uptake for this particular name for it. Without any sourcing, even a redirect is unwarranted. Hence, delete. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 22:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FitGirl Repacks

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

A search for reliable sources revealed nothing besides the Kotaku interview, which is really more of a primary source. Only cites a couple of reliable sources, one of which is rather minimal. Last AfD did not dredge up any others of note. Does not seem sufficiently notable for a standalone article, fails WP:GNG (or WP:BIO). ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TorrentFreak is a reliable source per WP:RSP. I don't see what has changed since the previous AfD which also resulted in a Keep consensus. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Elli (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
    I admit I missed the last AfD due to the article being moved. However, that changes nothing. Nobody in the last AfD brought up more sources and I am extremely surprised it wasn't a No Consensus decision if not an outright delete, discounting the WP:ITSNOTABLE keep !votes. Even including TorrentFreak and Kotaku, there are insufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also there seems to be some confusion about how many sources are needed to pass GNG - generally speaking, three is the agreed upon threshold for clear notability. While there can be two, those sources should be really high quality. I don't believe these pass that threshold, as the Kotaku article is just a paragraph. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you don't usually need three sources to pass GNG. WP:THREE is mainly for editors who will throw a ton of sources that are merely passing mentions at you. Editors in the previous discussion agreed that the sources were sufficient for notability. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying that "editors agreed that the sources were sufficient" is misrepresenting the situation. There were 7 for and 4 against, and a lot of the "keep" arguments were extremely short like "seems strong enough to establish notability" and did not address the concerns of the delete voters, such as "Article fails to establish notability. You cannot possibly write a good and comprehensive article with only two citations" (left by Namcokid47). Again, I am surprised it was not a No Consensus result. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've manually added the prior AfDs template, because Twinkle doesn't handle it well if an article was renamed post-AfD. No opinion on the merits of the nomination at this time. Vaticidalprophet 14:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can swear we've seen this already and it was kept. Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets GNG with the existing sources on the article, the 'Meet FitGirl, The Repack ‘Queen’ Of Pirated Games' article from TorrentFreak and the Kotaku article in particular are strong sources, and cover the subject in detail, and I disagree with ZXCVBNM's assessment of the Kotaku article having "just a paragraph" about Fitgirl. Waxworker (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources in the article are quite strong; the Kotaku article is certainly much more than just a single paragraph. While articles are not actually required by policy to have three sources to satisfy WP:GNG (I generally say that two is enough), the article actually does have three sources, two of which are very high-quality and directly cover the subject. Mlb96 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Only a small part of the Kotaku article is actually talking ABOUT the subject of the article in question, the rest is referring to other software pirates. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. Around a third of the article is about her. Another third is about mercs123, and the last third is background information. Considering how long the article is, that's a substantial amount. Mlb96 (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 22:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jatin Sadhu

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

Currently only sourced by promotional releases, there's a reason for that, could find zero in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources regarding this person. Onel5969 TT me 13:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 13:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donnalyn Bartolome

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

Fails GNG. No independent reliable sources. Ctrlwiki • 13:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 13:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of big tent political parties

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

Unsourced OR. Mccapra (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cannot see any way this could be rescued, will inevitably produce OR. The term itself is notoriously slippery and there are few parties which genuinely fit the description (as opposed to aspiring to be). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What do you mean by "original research"? When adding parties to that list, I am basing their inclusion on the fact that the parties' articles state that they are "big tent" parties. The criteria isn't what I consider to be big-tent and any "original research" I put in - the criteria is what other articles on Wikipedia already say. There are often sources on the parties' articles that support their definition as "big tent" - if not, then that's a problem with the party's article, not the list, and I am okay with adding sources as I go and removing unsourced entries if you feel that's the issue. Otherwise, feel free to request deletion of the following lists for the sake of consistency: List of left-wing political parties, List of right-wing political parties, and List of centrist political parties. -AndreyKva (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agreed with preceding statement. Most of the other articles similar to this one (ie. list of left wing/right wing political parties) are formatted almost identically, whereby the sources are found within the respective political parties article. I see no valid reason why this article should be deleted, while those are kept. Archives908 (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The articles linked to show in the infoboxes their "Political position". Dream Focus 01:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion criteria needs to be based on independent sources, not other Wikipedia articles. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that a Wikipedia editor decided it would be helpful to readers to summarise the political positions of a party by describing it as “big tent” does not form a proper basis for a list article. In most cases the characterisation in the info is is unsourced, so just copying it all into a list doesn’t make sense. Of the two parties listed that have online sources, “There Is Such A People” (Bulgaria) is at least described as “big-tent” in the source, though I don’t think that alone is a valid basis for listing it (unless the title is changed to “List of parties that were once described as “big tent””). The source for “National Liberation Front” (Algeria) doesn’t use the term “big tent” at all. That was an inference drawn by a Wikipedia editor. Overall, my rationale is that while it might be possible to find a source here or there where a party happens to be described as “big tent”, that in itself is not a proper basis for a Wikipedia article. Most entries here don’t even have that. Mccapra (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Big tent is a notable topic, but it's too subjective for a standalone list article, e.g. Ice cream vs List of best ice cream flavours (which are rum and raisin, boysenberry and vanilla bean, obviously!). Any properly sourced examples can easily be incorporated into the parent article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To elaborate Mccapra's points in reference to the keep !votes: First, Wikipedia cannot be a source for articles. Second, please see WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:WHATABOUT. Third, big tent parties generally exist in pluralistic polities, hegemonically occupying a middle ground with demonstrated capacity to successfully fend off challenges from *both* left and right (broadly defined). There are not actually many examples of this; Canada's Liberals or Japan's LDP are notable for their exceptional nature. Describing parties rooted in authoritarianism (such as the Cambodian People's Party) or national liberation (Algeria's NLF), fringe parties or minority parties as big tent is simply incorrect... (the inclusion of Angola's UNITA, a proxy for cold war rivalry, genuinely has me shaking my head). Those seeking to keep this article need to refute the appearance of original search by citing a body of work from political scientists/sociologists showing a consensus for parties to be termed "big tent" parties (it's important the sourcing is of academic quality and not news media simply repeating claims of a party that, surprise, surprise, they are a big tent and seek to represent everyone) ... my concern is this does not exist, hence my !vote to delete....but happy to be convinced otherwise. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the reliable sources are in the main article, then you don't need to copy them to the list article. We are not using Wikipedia is a source. Dream Focus 00:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They aren’t. Mccapra (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:SOURCELIST; this is precisely why Wikipedia is not reliable. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The criterion for inclusion for lists can be a little less than crystal clear, unlike for categories, since we are about to group borderline cases together in a section, clarify with additional notes if the evidence for inclusion is not univocal, etc. While we do need a criterion for inclusion, that criterion does not need to be perfectly categorical. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Archives908. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As mentioned "big tent" is a subjective judgment. Even if we were sourcing entries, whether a party is currently positioning itself as a "big-tent" party varies all the time, often by candidate. It's not really something that's inherent enough to a political party. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per above and too much WP:OR, we shouldn’t define an Wikipedia article on other Wikipedia articles, plus even more when it is unsourced. BastianMAT (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete much too subjective -- no real criteria about what to. include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 16 January 2022 17:47 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 13:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First-out alarm

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

Article is essentially an unsourced ministub about an unfocused topic which could have many different applications or meanings depending on the context. The only citation is to a 54 page industrial standards PDF with no reference to a page or section. Title appears to fail WP:PRECISION. May be worth redirecting to Alarm device, if nothing else. Headphase (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hu, Wenkai; Chen, Tongwen (2019). A Data Driven Method to Detect First-Out Alarms Based on Alarm Occurrence Events. 2019 CAA Symposium on Fault Detection, Supervision and Safety for Technical Processes (SAFEPROCESS). IEEE. pp. 689–694. doi:10.1109/SAFEPROCESS45799.2019.9213382.
  2. ^ Hamaguchi, T.; Mondori, B.; Takeda, K.; Kimura, N.; Noda, M. (2013). "Generating Alternative Modules for a Plant Alarm System Based on First-Out Alarm Alternative Signals" (pdf). Procedia Computer Science. 22: 937–944.
  3. ^ Shukla, S.; Venkatesan, A.; Venkatesan, N.; Dheenadhayalan, R.; Monica, R. (2016). Integrated alarm annunciation system with dual communication capability and operator assisted messaging for nuclear power plant applications (pdf). 2016 SAI Computing Conference (SAI). IEEE. pp. 893–901.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into either Alarm device or Alarm management per SailingInABathTub. The reliable sources which discuss this topic seem to only discuss it within the wider context of alarms in general. --Zander251 (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, redirect or merge? Where to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete minor technical feature. DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Region (geometry)

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

"Region" is not, as far as I know, used with any specific technical meaning in mathematics, so it is a mistake to write an article with that title as if it meant something specific. As stated in the edit summaries of multiple attempts to redirect this to something more useful, this is an unsourced vague WP:DICDEF without any attempt to distinguish its topic from area or shape or Domain (mathematical analysis) or Connected component (topology) or set (mathematics), without even a clear-enough definition to tell which of those is intended or what counts as a region and what doesn't, and without any useful information for readers beyond a vague wave at a list of topics that can just as easily be found with more detail in Euclidean geometry. Its creator, User:Fgnievinski, is the sole editor of this article, and has made no attempt at turning it into a proper article. If (as seems clear from repeated reverts) Fgnievinski is not going to allow this to remain as a redirect to a better article, it should just be deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Region" is widely mentioned in geometry articles, although not linked as often as it could; for a trivial example, see Disk (mathematics), whose lead reads: "In geometry, a disk (also spelled disc) is the region in a plane bounded by a circle.". The distinction with "area" (and "length" and "volume") is well defined in Region (mathematics), where it says "the amount or extent" of 1D, 2D, and 3D regions, respectively; I've now edited the article to emphasize those measures are scalar quantities. I've also edited the article to cite a reference sourcing the above concepts. Maybe the trouble is those are very basic concepts? Sometimes it feels fellow editors forget Wikipedia is meant for a broad audience, not one's peers. I also protest the nominator's previous WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT when a merge would have been more appropriate. I also note in passing I've tried to initiate a discussion which I hoped would be more fruitful, but it was responded with a threat of AfD, whose tone seemed intimidating. fgnievinski (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also note the proponent has been removing links to the proposed article (as in, e.g., convex region, a special kind of geometric region). They have also been redirecting, without merging, other geometry topics, such Hypersphere. fgnievinski (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have made a single undo today, after one of your bad edits to spam links to this bad article across the encyclopedia. Please refrain from doing that. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In my search for this topic, I didn't find much evidence that there is a cohesive concept of region in pure geometry. But there is more evidence for a concept of region in applied geometry, particularly in computer graphics and digital image processing. Region filling (flood fill) is a basic operation in raster computer graphics. Clipping algorithms concentrate on a region of interest. Morphological image processing has operations that act on connected regions, e.g., Morphological Operations. And software systems that manipulate geometric objects often have a notion of region, e.g. Wolfram language, IRAF, X Window System Protocol. I think a broad concept article could be formed around these applied geometry uses. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 04:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have evidence that these uses are part of a single cohesive body of work that uses this word with a specific technical meaning, or is it just a common English word used with its colloquial meaning? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per David Eppstein's comments - this is just a word used in its colloquial sense, and fails on WP:NOTDICT. PianoDan (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment If the Region (geometry) is deleted, I think Region (mathematics) is also deleted. Also, the lead sentence says "in mathematical analysis" when the article was called Region (mathematics).--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that a new article has been created recently (Macbeath regions).--SilverMatsu (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, if the term doesn't denote a coherent entity in mathematics, then we should not have an article on it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)*[reply]
  • Delete The use of this word in geometry beyond its use as a colloquial term to design subsets is not supported by the current version of the article, and it seems that it will stay this way.jraimbau (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not one of those cases where the everyday word and the mathematical term have diverged so much in meaning that we need an encyclopedia article on the latter. XOR'easter (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 13:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Wells-Morrison

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

Youth team player who has not yet played in any games to qualify for WP:NFOOTBALL and can't find any significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. He recently featured in squad for FA Cup game, so I attempted WP:DRAFTIFYing, but the page creator keeps moving back to mainspace. I would suggest moving back to draft and see how things go rather than outright deletion. Spike 'em (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khazar University Dictionary and Encyclopedia Center

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

Fails WP:GNG, not in any way notable. Its main task is writing a non-notable translation dictionary. If anything should be kept, merge it with Khazar University, and delete this as an implausible redirect. Mako001 (C)  (T)  11:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably mention that Kevo327 had recommended that I have a look at some of the articles relating to this university, so it would probably be best to consider their !vote to be part of the nomination. Mako001 (C)  (T)  05:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete University centers are rarely (if ever) notable and in this case there's zero references in the article or anywhere else to justify an article. I don't even think it's worth merging or redirecting. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 22:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chanto

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

I’d like to present the Chanto article for deletion, and open to the guidance that may be received from the editors that will be contributing towards this discussion. I have reviewed and followed the steps outlined on nominating article(s) for deletion and would like to confirm the following:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khazar English–Azerbaijani Comprehensive Dictionary

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

Reads like an advertisement, all sources are self-published. I don't really see why this translation dictionary is particularly notable. Might be able to be mentioned in the Khazar University article, but nothing more than a passing mention is needed. Mako001 (C)  (T)  11:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably mention that Kevo327 had recommended that I have a look at some of the articles relating to this university, so it would probably be best to consider their vote to be part of the nomination.Mako001 (C)  (T)  22:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unacademy

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

not an education technology company,but a coaching school. The references mostly deal with investments it has made, which does not meet WP:NCORP. Previously deleted, but re-created. DGG ( talk ) 11:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Locally regular space

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

This article discusses a concept that by the page creator's own admission was invented for this article itself (see talk:Locally regular space.). This clearly fails WP:GNG. It was suggested to merge, but since the article is irredeemably unsourced (for the same reason), everything in the article as it stands is WP:OR. Therefore I can't see any content to merge. I'd be happy with blanking and redirecting. Felix QW (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Felix QW (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is invented then it's eligible for CSD A11. Neo-corelight (Talk) 08:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I didn't tag for CSD A11 is that the admission of having invented it is on the Talk page, and not in the article itself. Felix QW (talk) 08:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I PROD'ded it with the reason indicated, but the PROD was removed, so I went to AfD. Felix QW (talk) 08:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR PianoDan (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Regular" is heavily overused as a mathematical term. I searched MathSciNet, finding 105 papers with the phrase "locally regular". Two of them actually appear to involve point-set topology, MR0025149 and MR0025150, but I think the concept there is different. So although it is plausible that someone else might have studied the same concept under the same name, I didn't find any evidence that it actually happened. Searching for locally T3 was similarly fruitless. So this appears to be, not only OR, but unrescuable OR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR. Note also that the page creator is not active on WP anymore, but already in the Talk page discussion from Nov 2008 he agreed that "unless 'Locally regular space' is a formal mathematical term, deletion should be considered". PatrickR2 (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shendy, Kazakhstan

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

No evidence of notability, sourced only to GEOnet. BEFORE search did not return significant coverage or documented legal recognition. –dlthewave ☎ 04:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL There are many online references for Шенды Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't cast votes like the one above because it's really not helpful at all - You cannot just say "search the name of the place in Cyrllic script" as though it is an actually answer. No, you tell us what the actual coverage is if you think it is enough to keep the article. Looking at the sources, not speaking Russian/Kazakh, I don't see what it is that's supposed to be a keep reason here. Remember, the WP:ONUS is on the person who wants something to be kept to show why it should be. FOARP (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - GEONet Names Server (GNS) spam. GNS is not reliable for whether a place is a populated place per the recent consensus on this at RSN, and cannot be used to show legal recognition. Cannot find any sources, still less evidence of legal recognition. Searching "Шенды" gives a lot of GBooks hits... but they're in works of fiction like the Russian translation of "Sea of ​​Shards" by Joe Abercrombie. It seems that "Шенды" is a Cyrillic version of a number of non-Russian names which creates a very large number of false positives. Going to the location given in the article, I see what appears to be oil wells/a construction site (note particularly the photo and the blackened ground around the site in the over-head view), not a populated place. Google maps does have another site named "Shendy" a short distance away, but this is an empty field on the opposite side of the train-tracks to the village of Tosbulak. Unless they're going to actually present sources showing legal recognition or significant coverage, Eastmain's "keep" is effectively a null-vote. FOARP (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no evidence that there is an actual community here as the article claims. Not at a level that merits an article at least. Not every spot on the earth that someone has assigned some name to is notable enough to merit an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There probably was a community at the location given in the article, but the reference is not sufficient, and search results are not about this place. The photo is probably of a compressor station elsewhere in the district, as indicated by the caption and coordinates in the URL. Anon3406 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any coverage of the location from WP:RS. LearnIndology (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "keep" opinions make little in the way of serious arguments, and in particular do not cite appropriate notability-establishing sources when challenged to do so. Sandstein 22:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramana Sayahi

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

WP:GNG. The references are not any major news agencies. Random websites here and there. Ladsgroupoverleg 00:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which references meet the criteria? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Because she has acted in several films that are famous, a person has the criteria of recognition of actors.--5.124.163.98 (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some analysis of the sources would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She is an Iranian actor who has acted in at least a few films and has a good reputation.--Gas Spray (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that she is notable enough? So why her biography was deleted in Persian Wikipedia?! Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Brayan ocaner: yes, and the next thing, not having a wiki in a language is not a reason for not being famous. I can show you a thousand articles that do not exist in Persian, but are here.--Gas Spray (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can show you more than thousand of articles that exist here and has not Persian equivalents! in this case, her Persian Wikipedia page was deleted (not wasn't created), because of lack of notability, although Persian is her native language! It's definitely different with your example! Brayan ocaner (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Brayan ocaner:No, in my opinion, there is a taste in Persian wiki and no one pays attention to the sources if they do not like the article.It will be removed even if it is Ward Cunningham personal brush.--Gas Spray (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm getting the sense that this might be a paid/promotional sort of article, or there might be meatpuppery here -- especially with the many keep !votes on an article titled "Ramana Sayahi", a name that only has a single hit in Google news.
    Regardless of that, there are a few pages of hits in Google news under her Persian name. But the ones I've found seem to be low-quality, tabloid-type websites or entertainment "news". The majority of the sources also seem to say the same thing - she looks like Angelina Jolie. I haven't seen a source yet that is useful for passing Wiki notability, so I'm leaning towards delete for now. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Đorđe Aćimović

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

The subject does not appears to meet WP:SPORTCRIT. The only relevant coverage I see is player statistics. His father was a notable player, but he cannot inherit the notability from his father. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mergers involving other articles and/or creation of redirects can be pursued as regular editorial matters. RL0919 (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas affair

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

Apparent WP:HOAX. I checked both the cited sources (both are public domain and accessible on Google Books) and as far as I can tell neither of them mentions a skirmish or battle in Las Vegas, New Mexico. (t · c) buidhe 06:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Las Vegas and La Hoya Pass, June 20, 1847, from Notes of the Mexican War, 1846-47-48, 1885.
  • Edit and/or Merge Not so much a hoax as ill-conceived. Commonly known as the Fight at Las Vegas and, as listed by the U.S. military, the Battle of Las Vegas, which took place June 20, 1847 (https://books.google.com/books?id=NzafDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA199 (also noted: June 6 https://books.google.com/books?id=-bULAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA143 and July 7, 1847, according to some sources, but it seems a potential skirmish was avoided that day https://archive.org/details/notesofmexicanwa00oswa/page/204). It was the oddly chosen title and "July 1847" that had immediately caught my eye as being off in this article, which I'd picked off from a long list of potentially compromised articles created by one editor, first found confabulating an article by Keith H99. There may be enough to edit into a viable article, but likely a small addition to the war's article is more suitable. I hadn't had time to dig deeper as yet, so had not suggested a deletion. Rather than delete, the facts may possibly be merged into another article, if there's not enough to warrant a stand-alone page. It is mentioned in the Las Vegas, New Mexico article, without a WP:RS Lindenfall (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it into Taos_Revolt#Further_fighting, seems reliably sourced but not notable enough for a standalone article. --Nug (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Possibly, an excellent idea from Nug (above). However, the Taos Revolt article, together with all three of the otherwise unsourced battle articles linked in that Further fighting section, should first be examined and, likely, reduced to one single article, as the same editor created all four. That editor is Az81964444 outed as a noted fabulist by @Keith H99:, then outed and banned as sockpuppet $1LENCE D00600D. (See notes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Action_of_13_December_1814 and more articles that need checking, editing and/or merging: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Az81964444.) Lindenfall (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Taos Revolt has a separate section in The Encyclopedia of the Mexican-American War, so I think that article is okay. Merging all three of the battle sub articles (Battle of Red River Canyon, the Battle of Las Vegas, and the Battle of Cienega Creek) into Taos Revolt is a good idea as all three don't seem notable enough for standalone articles. --Nug (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing (1) what sources call it "Las Vegas affair" and (2) what there is sourced to merge. Better to delete this title and redirect Battle of Las Vegas to Taos Revolt#Further fighting as suggested, adding the above sources. czar 00:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MV Almezaan. Redirecting to the ship article where the incident is mentioned, preserving the content so that more material can be merged. Tone 13:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 23 March 2010

Action of 23 March 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NEVENT. No lasting coverage found. The author is known for exaggerating/fabricating incidents, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action of 13 December 1814 (t · c) buidhe 05:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 05:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 05:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 05:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - Notable for being the first time that private security guards opened fire on and killed Somali pirates, se particularly the following sources 1 2 3 4 5 6. Notably the coverage extended for months/years after the event showing WP:LASTING effects. Doubts have also been raised about what the Almezaan was actually doing off Somalia (some suggests that they had previously been running guns into the country). Could also do a merge to MV Almezaan as an ATD. FOARP (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not opposed to a merge. (t · c) buidhe 10:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable to me, and adequately sourced. It looks to me like it would be difficult to merge with the article on the ship, which briefly describes three pirate attacks including this one. This article contains much more information on only one of the attacks. So I say just keep it. Ficaia (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Delete the redirect, as it is too ambiguous. I'm sure that I could find another "action" on that same day somewhere, then we'd be in a pickle, eh? Mako001 (C)  (T)  11:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Economic citizenship. Which itself looks heavily like OR to me, but that's for another AfD. Sandstein 22:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ius doni

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

This article is a neologism coined by Christian Kälin. The article creator has acknowledged a COI with Kälin's firm. The topic is closely related to citizenship by investment, which is already covered at Immigrant investor programs. But the neologism, which this article is about, has not gained significant coverage in independent sources. Looking at Google Scholar, almost all hits are for Kälin's publications[17] and others are from researchers like Dimitry Kochenov that have financial ties to his firm. It's possible that some of this content could be merged elsewhere, but it would have to be carefully checked for POV issues. (t · c) buidhe 05:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 05:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to Economic citizenship - it can be mentioned in the section on "Citizenship by investment" that one scholar calls it by this name, if that's the limit to the reference, which would also make that section a valid redirect target for the term. BD2412 T 06:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. PianoDan (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW keep. In this case, a potential rename is better handled at the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tek Fog

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

the wire (India) is not credible source Lelemera (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Block evading Sock.[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 11. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 04:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Devesh S N Bhatta:, @AgentOrangeLeaf:, @Changisgod:, @Dhawangupta: plz join the discussionLelemera (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Block evading Sock.[reply]
Lelemera, pinging only those who shared your view at PROD discussion is blatant WP:CANVASSing. hemantha (brief) 07:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep: You have provided only one reason for deletion: which is to challenge the credibility of one of the sources used the article. So, there are two things to consider here. First, is the source in question (The Wire) credible? Nothing has been provided to show that it is not. The burden of showing that is on you. You cannot just say "not credible" and expect people to believe it. Please provide adequate reasons and explanations, otherwise this AfD is just wasting time. Second, there are multiple other sources reporting on this - so even if the Wire is not accepted as a source, it does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the article should be up for deletion. (Edit: I have changed my vote to keep per the discussion below - and would like to point out that the nominee is consistently failing to comply with WP:AFDR, including voting twice on their own nomination, engaging in blatant canvassing, etc. This should be a speedy keep}}. - Naushervan (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Naushervan: It should be noted that most, if not all, other sources reporting on this have either reported the findings of 'The Wire's investigation' (such as the Deutsche Welle, Quartz and Le Monde reports mentioned by Venkat TL in his keep vote) or reactions of opposition parties/leaders on the findings of 'The Wire's investigation' (such as The Hindu, The Tribune, Deccan Herald and Telegraph India reports mentioned by Venkat TL in this reply and this edit). Rockcodder (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC); edited 07:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear to me and anyone else who reads the article, especially the subsection specifically devoted to the Wire's investigation, that the Wire investigated this, as a result of which multiple independent and reliable sources have reported on their investigation, as well as the app itself, and the fall out. I don't know what summarising the Wiki page here will do, but thanks. - Naushervan (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Go through this discussion on WP:RSN for the reliability of the wire (India). It states Controversial statements (as to anything tangentially connected to politics, nationalism et al) ought be not sourced to news-reports by them and if sourced, maintain WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.Same for their opinion-pieces and other news-articles. Lelemera (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I created the article. I am suggesting a speedy keep as the nomination is erroneous and has no merit. There are multiple primary and secondary sources in the article, including international publishers like Deutsche Welle [18] Quartz (publisher) [19] and Le Monde [20]. The topic has generated considerable coverage in international media and Indian political landscape to merit an article on Wikipedia by passing WP:GNG. It is also obvious that the nominator hates the wire and he is allowing his hate to cloud his judgement of articles for Wikipedia. The nominator has shot himself in the foot by selectively canvassing only those users who have commented about deleting the article and left out those users who have expressed intentions about keeping the page. Any comment by these convassed users should be discounted by the closing admin. Venkat TL (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per RSN discussion that i quoted above the wire (India) shall not be used as source for anything tangentially connected with Indian politics et al. However, Deutsche Welle [21] Quartz (publisher) [22] and Le Monde [23] source this news from The Wire itself. Tek Fog is an imaginary app investinagted by the wire and subsequently covered by other media organisation. Also, previous RSN discussion remarked about the Wire as being left biased. Hence the investigation by the wire shall not be considered as reliable untill this investigation shall be indipendently verified by other sources. Hence, speedy deletion is suggested. Lelemera (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Block evading Sock.[reply]
@Venkat I have voted only once. the first one is nomination for deletion and the second one is my vote.Lelemera (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here , the nomination is counted as 1 vote. There is no need to vote again second time. Read WP:AFDR or ask any admin.--Venkat TL (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lelemera, that section that you quote, also says "But, ought to pass WP:RS under WP:NEWSORG" -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per RSN discussion. The wire ought to pass as WPRS. However the news outlet shall not be used for anything tangentially connected to Indian politics et alLelemera (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Tek Fog app controversy or something along those lines. Let's say that this app doesn't actually exist OR that no reliable source is able to prove anything beyond what The Wire has alleged till now. Even then, the controversy remains notable as there are enough reliable sources about opposition leaders' statements regarding this app. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 Please follow WP:AFDR and use the given options. Rename is not there among voting options. This is WP:Articles for deletion discussion. There will be nothing left to rename if the article is deleted. Venkat TL (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. Cancelled my old vote, revoted -MPGuy2824 (talk)
    While WP:AFDR doesn't list it, rename is a valid vote/outcome in practice. hemantha (brief) 14:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The controversy about the app now is notable, even if the app is later proved to be non-existent/a hoax. I'd recommend renaming the article to Tek Fog app controversy. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, frivolous nomination. The app has received widespread coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. The Wire is also certainly RS, not that it would even matter here. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - At the time of nomination there were enough WP:RS refs in the page already. With no proper justification from the nominator, it's hard to see what the issue is here. hemantha (brief) 14:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have looked at the references. The Wire features heavily, however, what it says is reported on in multiple independent reliable sources. This renders the article as being about a topic that passes WP:GNG.
    Under these circumstances it is not even relevant whether Tek Fog exists, or even does what the article says. The controversy about it has become notable, and that controversy is not going away
    It may be that the article becomes retitled to be about the controversy, but that is a matter of content. There are no policy based reasons for deletion. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is a concensus that The Wire can't be used as a reliable source for any controversial issues for obvious reasons.. Just featuring in google searches doesn't make The Wire a WP:RSN, votes defending on that basis too should be considered null. And when I go through page, particular article too is nothing more than a advertisement of The Wire report again. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just found this Tweet which ensures that this app is around for a long time and the recent coverage by other sources at least makes the subject notable. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment@Aman Kumar Goel, the tweet you mentioned is the only basis for the wire investigation. All the investigation of The wire has no other basis than this tweet. 45.124.142.2 (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As clearly laid down in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248, The wire cannot be considered a source of valid information in matters related to politics. All other articles quoted are derived entirely or in part from The Wire and associated media. The article as written possesses no merit and should be deleted. CapnJackSp (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC) — CapnJackSp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Those citing the RSN thread fail to mention that only 2 editors claimed that The Wire is unreliable, and the quotes specifically used are only from 1 editor's viewpoint which do not create any sort of consensus. In that same thread, 3 others gave The Wire the thumbs up at least in terms of reliability. And regardless, the coverage shown by Venkat clearly show this topic meets WP:GNG. This really seems like a case of a certain group trying to get this article deleted because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Moving the article to Tek Fog app controversy is an option, but this is a fresh story so I'd wait a bit to see how it plays out. Jumpytoo Talk 00:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the controversy is growing up, it certainly passes WP:GNG, besides that, if it gets deleted it would be like deleting a scam from history. Regards --Arunudoy (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A propoganda application to spread misinformation. The source (The Wire) seems well researched and comprehensive. Neurofreak (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The wire is indeed a reliable source, they were the partners of Amnesty International in publishing the pegasus 0day victims leak. Regards Otnatsirk Maharba (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This nomination was made by an account set up to evade a block. I suggest it was not made in a good faith. --Yamla (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248, The wire cannot be considered as a relaible source related with politics it is politically lest biased. 45.124.142.2 (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: With the current news and happening and in particular, the case where the wire conducted the investigation and brought forth the information/report, is reliable especially considering the backing of multiple other sources on the article. MehmoodS (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is now a major news item reported by multiple major news services (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-01-12/india-s-tek-fog-shrouds-an-escalating-political-war-against-modi-s-critics). Expect a spike in search for 'Tek Fog'. If deleted, it will simply be recreated. Opinions on validity of The Wire is secondary at this point. Dheerajkakar (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At this point the status of The Wire is irrelevant. To take an extreme example, just because The Daily Mail is a deprecated source does not mean we cannot write about the Daily Mail and its notable stories. There's widespread, growing reporting on this, passes WP:EVENTCRIT. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although some modification may be required for the WP:NPOV. — The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 08:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Minimax

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

I have come to question the utility of the list, since Minimax evidently does not air any original programming. Also, the vast majority of the list is unsourced. I'm unable to search efficiently for precedent, since the delsort archives are lagging my browser and the AfD archive search is clogged with pages from a mass nomination incident in 2017, but I think we delete programming lists that are merely repackagings of programs on other channels. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We really shouldn't have "every single programs broadcast by every channels" lists. It violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and fails WP:LISTN. Neo-corelight (Talk) 04:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Network doesn't produce any original programming, nor is there a neutral source here among all of them. Nate • (chatter) 07:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Motion Picture Association film rating system. There is serious doubt that this is independently notable (and very few defensible arguments to that effect), but even most "delete" opinions tell us that it should be covered in the context of the rating system. Sandstein 22:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One-fuck rule

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

There is a place on Wikipedia for discussion of profanity and how it affects MPAA ratings, and that place is Motion Picture Association film rating system. There is no evidence that this sub-issue of a sub-issue is significant enough to split off into its own article. Discussion at DYK speculates that editor who created an article did so in an attempt to get profanity on the main page. I have no idea what their motives were, and I have long been an admirer of a creative and boundary-pushing hooks at DYK. Where I don't think we should pushing boundaries and getting creative is in article titles. NONE of the sources cited name this rule as it is named by the article, so this is a case of Wikipedia creating a neologism, which should be out of bounds. Gamaliel (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not seem to be a codified guideline. No reason to hold a page for a non codified guideline that seems to have picked up some steam in internet-speak. Ktin (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Motion Picture Association film rating system (the appropriate location as noted by the nominator) without using the term "one-fuck rule" unless it's in a quote or supported by substantial sources. The appropriate section would be Motion Picture Association film rating system § Language. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is part of a series of recent DYK submissions by The C of E somewhat littered with the F-word, to put the word on Wikipedia's Main Page. The editor is currently under restrictions for similar inflammatory editing problems at DYK. — Maile (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And how does that affect the suitability of this page for Wikipedia, beyond being a clear ad hominem deflection? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The information is about the limit of PG-13 rating, so it should go to Motion Picture Association film rating system. Don't even keep it as a redirect because the title is a neologism. Neo-corelight (Talk) 04:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The title is an WP:NDESC title because there is no official title for it, but the concept (or popular opinion of it) is that it does exist. There are sources that affirm it in the minds of the public that films can only say "fuck" once to avoid a harsher rating, more than enough to fulfil WP:GNG. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    was the article created for a dyk submission? ~ cygnis insignis 07:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge without turning into a redirect. It doesn't seem like the term is widely used or would be a common search term for readers looking up the MPA BuySomeApples (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (On the fence on whether to delete or merge after reading some of the newer votes.) BuySomeApples (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Objections to the title of the article as a neologism are without merit: the title has merely been selected as the name of an existing rule, if the title is the problem then another can be selected. The Rule itself is a pass for WP:GNG as it is the subject of multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources. Particularly Along Those Lines: The Boundaries That Create Our World gives a full page of coverage to it, Sex & sensibility : reflections on forbidden mirrors and the will to censor also gives a page or so of coverage to it (but calls it the "automatic language rule"). Searching for the "automatic language rule" and "MPAA" brings up a number of hits (1 2 3 4 5 6). The rule has been around for a while is broader than just PG-13 rating decisions (e.g., there was significant discussion around it related to All the President's Men and its "R" rating). Suggest renaming to "Automatic language rule" as it appears that this is the common name, if more boring, for this rule. Merging to Motion Picture Association film rating system is not appropriate as it would be undue under that article and may result in an article that is too long. FOARP (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It is obvious from the sources given above, that it is neither a seperate encyclopedic topic, nor should the topic be a separate article from the ratings article -- the necessary encyclopedic context is within the ratings scheme, which should include both explanation of factors and criticism of the scheme. (see also, WP:NOPAGE) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need for a separate page as the subject is already covered adequately at Motion_Picture_Association_film_rating_system#Language. It seems an unlikely search term at the present title so I don't think a redirect would be useful. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, anything that needs to be said about this aspect of film rating can be said better elsewhere, we don't need a slew of micro-articles on the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete/merge This is textbook example of when WP:NOPAGE applies, as the content can be well covered in the main article. Reywas92Talk 17:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no redirect needed. This is not a particularly well-used phrasing of an MPAA rule. Some content can be Merged into the above article per the nominator's suggestion. It's also not clear to what extent this alleged guideline has been formalized by the MPAA, and the sources in the article don't provide details that can be used to verify this. AlexEng(TALK) 22:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with redirect - this is very obviously a topic that does not make sense to talk about in isolation, without relevant secondary material to justify there being any interest in it in its own right. Otherwise, at most, it should be a section on the relevant article about MPAA classifications. That being said, the objections to the redirect are specious: it doesn't matter if it's not a commonly used term, as that's the exact reason why redirects exist in the first place. All it would be doing it making it harder for people who have heard the term to find information out about it. Theknightwho (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The fact that the title contains the word "fuck" is irrelevant to anything, but while this is a real phenomenon with sourcing, there doesn't seem to be enough meat in it to justify its own article, and I also don't see enough that adding it to Motion_Picture_Association_film_rating_system#Language would constitute undue weight. A lot of it is there already. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient substantial WP:SIGCOV to warrant an independent article. SN54129 00:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Motion Picture Association film rating system. The phenomenon -- or perceived phenomenon, given it doesn't track practice too well -- is actually quite well-known, but not covered in sufficient depth to produce a non-anemic article, or with sufficient separation from the broader topic to be better covered for the reader as a stand-alone article. As Theknightwho says, it doesn't particularly stand in isolation well. (Motion picture rating systems are a long-term interest of mine, if not one very reflected in my editing areas. If I thought a stand-alone for this was justified, I'd have written it.) Vaticidalprophet 00:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - FYI, another term in the same vein that I came across today is the Mull of Kintyre test, which does have its own short section and redirect. Let's just do something like that. Theknightwho (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sorry, I'd be more sanguine about the keep or merge arguments if this article had better sourcing, rather than to blogs and pop culture sites. The title is absolutely a neologism, and I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise. Ravenswing 15:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sourcing isn't the problem. Several high-quality book sources were given above. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not completely without precedent; for example, here is an example of One Fuck rule in a 2020 news story. Here's another from a high-profile blog in 2014. It's a pretty obvious coinage, I think. XOR'easter (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Motion Picture Association film rating system. There is no doubt that there is some coverage about this (as demonstrated by the given sources), and many if not most of the delete !votes do not seem to make an argument why this should be deleted instead of merged (in fact, many of them explicitly seem to be arguing for actual merging, with arguments such as "No need for a separate page"...). The presence of the word "fuck" in the title has otherwise absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the issue. However, given the paucity of information in the current article, and the fact there is plenty of space at Motion_Picture_Association_film_rating_system#Language to add this, WP:NOPAGE would apply. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per RandomCanadian. This is a topic that has received coverage, but it's only part of the larger picture of the rating system. Leave the redirect in place because the term or close variants have been used in discussing the matter, and it therefore is a plausible search term. And redirects are cheap anyway. oknazevad (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge: reasonable sources and a reasonable topic. The information is usable somewhere. More sources given above show room for expansion. AfD isn't the place to decide article title, nor the best one for determining scope of a subject. The closer should make sure to properly assess "delete" !votes that say a merge is acceptable. — Bilorv (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, per Bilorv. -- The Anome (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. significant in the world, and a understandable title. The sources are sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC) .[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Beggars' Guild

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

I found nothing to show notability. SL93 (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Tillman

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG, baseball and military careers weren't notable. The majority of sources are quotes of him criticizing former president Bush and comments about what happened on January 6, 2021. The rest are his name being mentioned alongside his brother's. Rockchalk717 03:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Non-admin quick closure done in accordance with WP:SKCRIT, i.e. the nominator withdraws the nomination... because of improvements to the article that happen during the AfD that clearly overcome the issues raised in the original nomination. Apologies for the apparently insufficient WP:BEFORE! (non-admin closure) WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 00:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Ochoa Salas

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

Unable to find sourcing in English or Spanish that indicates Ochoa meets WP:NACADEMIC. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 02:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Withdrawn per multitude of sources added by David Eppstein. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 00:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skaar, North Dakota

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

The picture in the article is of the farm that is all there is of Skaar, if you don't count the Lutheran church over in Montana that sits quite alone. Besides the church there is nothing that would suggest a town in anything I found: the GHits are down at clickbait levels; book hits include a cookbook from the church's ladies and one early settler who moved to Skaar before going elsewhere, and a geologic area of which it marks the west end. The road is named "Skaare" so I checked that as well, but but got nothing relevant. Mangoe (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Skaar seems to be a common surname in North Dakota, implying that there may be more history to be added here in the future. (e.g. The ‘one early settler’ mentioned above claims to have left because of an influx of many more settlers.) [31] [32] Perhaps the local historical society has some offline references that can be utilized to enhance this article. Jim Grisham (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - GNIS spam plus a passing mention in a book from an imprint that offers "custom publishing" (i.e., self-publishing). Fails WP:GEOLAND#1 as there's no evidence of legal recognition, fails GEOLAND#2 as there's no evidence of significant coverage. Appears to have been just a farm. "People had this as a surname" is not a valid keep rationale, this is not an article about the surname. "More settlers" does not mean more settlers at this particular location. "The local historical society might have sources" is also not a valid keep rationale since it is basically just WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. The WP:ONUS is on anyone wanting to keep content to show that it is supported. FOARP (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless you want to claim that people derieved their surname from being resident at this place, which would be to put forward an ahisotircal narrative on the nature of surnames in the United States, the number of times this name appears as a surname in the state where this community is located has no bearing. We have no reliable sources supporting this as a notable place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable source information, and no facts to back up an assertion that people with this name have a whit to do with the town. Star Mississippi 15:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ladoga, North Dakota

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

A long passing siding now, with the foundations of a water tank visible still, but nothing shows any sign of a settlement here, and this book describes it as a place which never took hold. Searching is heavily contaminated with a wheat variety and the town in Indiana, so I may have missed something. Mangoe (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - GNIS spam plus a map (which is excluded from showing notability per WP:NGEO). There's also the lake in Russia, but yeah, not seeing anything. RE: the book, "Judd's Workshop Publications" appears to have been owned by the author of the book and as such it was self-published, the reprint was published by Watchmaker and so was also self-published. FOARP (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not enough here for an article, only a name in a map and a database, which are not enough to confirm that it was a settlement, and a mention in a self-published book. I searched but couldn't find anything significant. Anon3406 (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert David Steele

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

While there was some coverage of his death, same issues as last AfD still appear. Onel5969 TT me 16:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I can see how this guy's notability was iffy before, but the coverage of his death pushes him over the hump IMO. valereee (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: He was a major figure in the new age conspiracism movement. His death was widely reported in reliable secondary sources. Even if RDS's ideas clearly marked him as a fringe crackpot he became notable in his death and the aftermath. Salimfadhley (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. notable. This is the sort of person where people will look for some (hopefully) unbiased information. DGG ( talk ) 07:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Concur re notability, he was a fairly well recognized individual in independent online media. Chris Rodgers (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 13:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tandu

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

I was going to redirect this to Uplift_Universe as an ATD as a BEFORE shows no indication the characters are independently notable, however they're not mentioned there so it wouldn't help the reader and there's nothing independently sourced to support a merge. A list of characters doesn't appear to be a viable option per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Uplift Universe species Star Mississippi 22:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 22:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment looking at potential incoming links [33], it may be possible to create a disambiguation page for Tandu and mention that the fictional species there. Vexations (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As written it is entirely in-universe and I can find no reliable sources discussing this. The references in the article aren't reliable sources being a geocities site and a mailing list inaccessible as the domain has expired. As for a disambiguation page, those are not content pages and are just for navigation. If there is no article on Tandu, or a related article to link to, then they don't belong on the disambiguation page. -- Whpq (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Uplift Universe#Other species. They're one of the major villains (from a human viewpoint anyway). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    there's unfortunately nothing sourced to merge. Or non issue for fictional characters? Star Mississippi 15:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Consists only of plot summary and therefore fails WP:NOTPLOT, as does Uplift Universe, which I'll nominate for AfD. Sandstein 09:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sources were presented to demonstrate an encyclopedia article can be built for this topic. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Storylines of Emmerdale

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

Just a collection of plot summaries with no relevant commentary, fails WP:NOTPLOT. Avilich (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There are references, but notability is unclear, this is just an extended plot summary in the current form. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, let me start by saying I have contributed to this article, but I also accept it's current form/state has room for improvement (considerably). The article (and indeed, numerous other "storylines" articles for soaps) should not be just a "list of storylines". The article was previously called "Major Emmerdale storylines" to emphasis the fact it was only discussing those major (notable) and not run-of-the-mill. There is perhaps a wider consideration to be had as to whether serial dramas can warrant storyline articles as WP:NOTPLOT does not particularly offer policy on these type of articles specifically. The other option is to develop articles per-storyline which itself can satisfy the appropriate notability criteria (like Eastenders have done). Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PLOT and WP:WAF ("Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary") are quite straightforward, plot information is only included to contextualize a notable topic that has received some real-world commentary in third-party sources. Which means that plot summaries are supposed to be succint, and spinoff articles that serve as containment zones for trivia that didn't fit elsewhere are not generally supposed to exist. Avilich (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The lone keep voter above does not demonstrate how the article can be improved "considerably", despite the fact that he himself is a contributor, nor does he give any reason why NOTPLOT would not apply here. There is no commentary, reception, or anything else as mandated by that policy. The inclusion criteria also seem arbitrary, as only the "major" storylines (however one chooses to define it) are included. Avilich (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, it's only major storylines that receive sufficient coverage that would bring them closer to being considered notable. The issue here, from what I gather by your own rationale, is the manner in which the article is structured (which I have expressed an understanding of, to an extent) rather than purely its existence (though I suspect you would sooner it simply didn't exist). I guess, the article should be written in a way that is not just describing a plot in sub-sections, though the notability and reporting of many already exists and many sources are present to support that. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources that simply restate plot information have no bearing on notability. If you say the article needs to be rewritten, then that's an argument for doing away with this entirely. Avilich (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I may suggest is, if this were to be considered a deletion outcome (which isn't quite clear-cut), that draftify be an option so that improvement works (which is not disputed) have a chance to be attempted outside of mainspace. This also at least preserves the content if any particularly notable storylines could subsequently be spun off into their own articles. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this is deleted you can afterwards ask for a WP:REFUND and have it moved to draftspace (or userspace), and work on it for as long as you wish. Avilich (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Avilich: With respect, I understand that, I have been around for a while! It just seems to me that there is scope for doing something better with the article and it isn't unsalvageable, though may take some work and would make sense to do so rather than delete, *if*, and only if, that is the direction it goes. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NOTPLOT, part of the policy WP:NOT, which forbids articles that consist exclusively of plot summary (irrespective of how well sourced). Sandstein 09:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only one person believes that coverage is sufficient for notability. Sandstein 09:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Ona Paukstelis

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

An actor which does meet the inclusion criteria of WP:NACTOR as they do not have significant roles multiple notable productions or made any sort of innovative contribution to their industry. I don't see any evidence they meet WP:GNG either. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Re sigcov and Kenosha news articles: this is what WP:GNG has to say about sources: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." So having a dozen articles from Kenosha News is not necessarily helpful for determining if GNG is met. Samsmachado (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is, I think, an over-interpretation of the rules. If one author writes multiple times about someone, it remains one opinion. But it's natural that newspapers write multiple articles about notable people: there is only one Washington Post, and if you do three things in your life that attract the attention of the Washington Post, those three articles all count towards your notability: taken together, they mean you have sustained appearances in the public sphere, and you're not a one-off flash in the pan. The key thing is that the newspaper is independently triggered to write about different events in your life, and that the articles aren't all published in quick succession based on a single event. I assume the Kenosha news is a local newspaper; three references separated by a number of years therefore indicate sustained (but possibly local) notability. But I know nothing about this actress and have no plans to form an opinion. Elemimele (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here's some other things I found:
I tried to get a copy of the Femme Fatales article, but it's one of the issues that isn't on the Internet Archive, annoyingly. SilverserenC 21:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Fails WP:NACTOR. I don't recognise any films or series. They are small films. The coverage is from Kenosha News, is that is her home town newspaper. Where is the other coverage? Where is the national or international converage? Newspaper interviews. Seems to be a bit part actor, and seems to have barely done any acting at all. Its not even in WP:NACTOR. Not notable in the least. scope_creepTalk 09:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources with the very limited and not contributory exception of a hometown paper. Local coverage of local actors in very small productions does not help establish notability in terms of the general notability guideline nor for the specific subject matter guideline for actors. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_January_11&oldid=1066701960"