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

The result was no consensus.  JGHowes  ^talk 22:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2037 Bomber

2037 Bomber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:COATRACK article about what Clinton-era Congressional crystal gazers thought the U.S. bomber fleet should look like in 2037. The concept (if you can even call it that) was dropped within a year in favor of a stop-gap solution. Nothing worth merging. Schierbecker (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - no article is perfect, more sources could be added, but this one is adequately sourced. XavierItzm (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is being nominated for deletion because of its lack of notability. Quality is irrelevant. Your comment seems out of place. Schierbecker (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I see now that you just vote keep on every AfD with the same boilerplate argument, whether it fits or not. Makes sense now. Schierbecker (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Great ad-hominem, instead of addressing the issue, which is that the article is well sourced enough, with coverage across years in media such as Popular_Science, Wired (magazine), etc. We go by the sources here. XavierItzm (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or possibly merge into Long Range Strike Bomber with a redirect. Doesn't need to exist on its own. Intothatdarkness 18:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Intothatdarkness: Would B-2 Spirit make a better target? I attempted to accurately summarize the program with this edit. The slightly more contemporaneous Next-Generation Bomber would be my second pick. Schierbecker (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with the Next-Generation Bomber if we're looking for something more contemporaneous. Intothatdarkness 13:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Next-Generation Bomber. Not enough on its own but will improve the Next-Generation Bomber page. Mztourist (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to most applicable other article. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer - there is nothing on the TP about a WP:COATRACK issue.
  It is false that the concept was "dropped in one year". The article itself makes it clear that it was the official policy of the US Air Force from 1999 to 2006 to have a 2037 Bomber; i.e. from the 1999 Bomber Roadmap to the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. On these grounds alone the AfD ought to be rejected with prejudice.
  Furthermore, consider the sources over the years (among the other sources in the article):

• Airforce Magazine 1999
• Airforce Magazine 2004
• Wired (magazine) 2007
• Air Force Association 2007
• Congressional Research Service 2008
• Popular_Science 2009
• Center for Public Integrity 2014
• IRSEM 2015
• Ars Technica 2016

If we go by sources, the notability of the topic is well established.XavierItzm (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have USAF sources pinning the death of the "2037 bomber" much earlier. The 1999 White Paper on on Long Range Bombers (March 1999) set the 2037 goalpost. However, by the time the 1999 bomber study was revisited in 2001, USAF thinking had accelerated the timeline by four to seven years the White Paper on Long-Range Strike (November 2001).

The last bomber service life analysis was accomplished in FY98-FY99. This study indicated a Mission Area Assessment was required in 2013 to support a bomber replacement IOC date of 2037. However, changes in planned force structure and deletion of most B-52 low-level flying may have invalidated previous service life conclusions and require new analysis. The Air Force is beginning the Long-Range Strike Aircraft X (LRSA-X) study to examine bomber replacement timelines. Study goal is to start an acquisition program in the 2012 to 2015 timeframe.

• It is par for the course that neither the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review nor the 2006 QDR you mentioned pay any homage to any prior development efforts or timeline.

• There is also no evidence that any development work began before the timeline was fast-tracked. The 1999 white paper said that defining the Mission Area Assessment—the very first milestone—would need to begin by 2013. If this bomber was alive c. 2006, which it wasn't, then development wouldn't begin for seven more years. All the 1999 white paper does is ask lawmakers and Pentagon officials to hold their pennies for a new bomber project 15 years down the road. It does not a development program make. This bomber never existed. Schierbecker (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - When the article was nominated, it had six sources from 1999 to 2008. It now has twice as many sources, ranging from 1999 to 2016. It really is incredible how sources written in three separate decades, i.e., the 1990's, the 2000's, and the 2010's keep citing the 2037 Bomber. This might be a WP:HEY case. In any event, no evidence was ever raised for the original claim for deletion: that this was a WP:COATRACK and a subject that "was dropped within one year". XavierItzm (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You'll need to do better than these sources.

• Wired, 2007; A blog post which does no original reporting, quotes a Defense News article's source, an analyst, saying “I don’t believe in Santa Claus and I don’t believe in the 2037 bomber. It’s a mythical beast. It’s just not there. I don’t know why the Air Force even talks about it.” This source was being used on the Wikipedia entry to claim that specific technologies would be included in the bomber. The author's apparent inability to separate their own speculation and opinion from Defense News's reporting makes this an unreliable source. Moreover, Air Force sources I have read do not make specific claims about technology readiness in the 2037 timeframe. Defining mission requirements would not happen until before 2013, as I have already stated. This should have been a tip-off to you.

• Popular Science, 2009; mentions the mythical 2037 bomber in passing but goes on at length to describe the 2018 bomber competition. It seems the editor who added that source failed to read the Popular Science article properly and thought the unmanned, undetectable fully-fleshed out future aircraft was the 2037 bomber. *facepalm*

• Future Timeline Celeb birthday/horoscope-tier web portal that contains a WP:CIRCULAR reference back to Wikipedia and no original reporting.

• This two-page French Air Force brief from 2015 is highly dubious because it is vague and does no original reporting.

• The US Air Force, for its part, predicted in a controversial 1999 report (Bomber Roadmap) that the replacement of the B-52H (entered service in 1961) and B-2A (1993) bombers by a new generation will not take place until 2037.
• The service later changed course in 2004 saying it would need a new medium bomber from 2020 (without canceling the 2037 Bomber program) in order to cope with the proliferation of new

anti-aircraft systems (anti-access / area-denial)[...]

• The provenience of this information from events that supposedly occurred nine years prior is not explained. The claim that the bomber was alive until 2004, especially when it contradicts contemporaneous American reporting on the Long-Range Strike white paper three years earlier, is highly suspect.

• Stuffing an article with irrelevant sources is idea laundering, not improving the encyclopedia. Schierbecker (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I agree that the source futuretimeline that was there was not a WP:RS, and which someone had baselessly added in 2017. See, you really help improve the quality of the article when you constructively edit instead of nuking.XavierItzm (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or possibly merge - More than enough coverage and sources for an article. (This could be covered in another article if needed.) -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note This article was previously nominated for deletion in 2014,2016 and 2018. This article was previously merged and then demerged from Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit in January 2021. In addition to the unsupported nom claims of WP:COATRACK and of "dropped within a year", it is clear procedures were not followed and no WP:BEFORE was carried out. XavierItzm (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Since there was no consensus (or no discussion either), the Jan. 2021 attempt does not count as valid attempt imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Minor correction: The content I summarized on the B-2 Spirit page is still present in the form I wrote. The redirect was the only edit that was reversed. Schierbecker (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - per WP:HEYMANN, the article ought to not be deleted. It's had 55 edits since it was nominated to AfD. At nomination the article was 4,193 bytes. It is now 11,503 bytes. Since nomination, the article has been edited by 11 different editors, by my count. It has more than twice as many sources. Sources have been eliminated where warranted. And this is not to mention the serious vices in the original nomination, which include lack of a WP:BEFORE, unsubstantiated claims, etc. XavierItzm (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Buddy, I've stalked this page for well over a decade and spent several days trying to find any evidence that this concept was ever pursued beyond one service life projection 22 years ago. I didn't parachute into this AfD with no understanding of the issues. You did. Schierbecker (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, buddy. So you should know that per Wikipedia policy you were required to check the repeated attempts to delete or merge the page in 2014, 2016, 2018, and January 2021, all of which failed. But it appears you failed to do a basic WP:BEFORE. You may or may not have parachuted in, but you certainly didn't follow procedure. Besides, you continue to misrepresent that from 1999 to 2006 the Air Force's official plan was to develop a 2037 Bomber.XavierItzm (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you freaking kidding me?? This article was PROPOSED for deletion twice and nominated for Speedy Deletion once, all by the same user (who is now blocked). Contesting a Proposed Deletion or Speedy Deletion does not carry any prejudice against further discussion regarding merging or deleting an article at AfD. RTFM.

The termination date of 2001 is sourced within the article, but go off sis. Schierbecker (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have struck and removed my 'Merge' vote. Article now explains a clear concept. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The sourcing has improved, but the WP:COATRACK issue identified in the delete rationale remains. I do not think we should have an article entitled 2037 Bomber since not only does no such bomber exist, no specific plans for one were ever drawn up. What is of substance in the article is documentation of the requirements planning of US air defence policy, and neither the title nor the categories the article belongs to should suggest otherwise. I'm open to renaming this article, but rather than have this article remain under this title, I would !vote to merge it to Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider as the least distant article, under which the material could exist under the history section. Note further that if we cannot find several RSes that refer to this idea under the term 2037 Bomber, then the term falls foul of our policy per WP:NEOLOGISM; specifically, the Congressional sources I looked at do not support this as an established usage. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "2037 bomber" has a fair amount of common usage in primary sources, but it shouldn't be capitalized as a proper noun. Schierbecker (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abadi (settlement)

Abadi (settlement) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable dicdef, fails WP:N. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a major type of populated place as enumerated in the censuses. If the article had been created sooner, then this horrid mess may have been averted. – Uanfala (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still nothing more than a pure WP:DICDEF. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that it looks like a dicdef is a function of the current state of this short article, it's not a property of the topic. We don't delete articles just because they're short. – Uanfala (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep yes, the article is a stub but the Encyclopedia Iranica entry, for example, clearly shows that more can be written about this than a dictionary definition. Spicy (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a notable topic with clear room for expansion. Vaticidalprophet 22:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @4nn1l2: It's âbâdi, right, with circumflex accents? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • âbâdi is a perfectly acceptable transliteration used on Wikitionary, but there are other alternatives such as ābādī as chosen by Iranica. There is not an established transliteration scheme for Farsi as far as I know. The English Wikipedia has not adopted any MOS regarding Farsi as far as know (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Persian is just a proposal). 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd just transliterate is as Ābādī as the Persian "آ" is generally transliterated like that, and that's what most sources say. However there are quite a few derivatives of the transliteration. And as 4nn1l2 states, there is no proper guideline on transliterating Persian. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 07:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per all, it is a notable topic with clear room for expansion. Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Besides Iranica article mentioned above, this is another quality article on abadi (in Farsi) from Encyclopaedia Islamica. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((cite encyclopaedia|url=https://www.cgie.org.ir/fa/article/237231/%D8%A2%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AF%DB%8C|encyclopaedia=[[Encyclopaedia Islamica]]|article=آبادی|author=هادی عالم زاده))
• -abad (AfD discussion) is currently listed for deletion as well. Should it redirect here? Uncle G (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're two distinct topics related only by etymology: one is a type of settlement, the other is a placename suffix. – Uanfala (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the source from here. Per the wealth of information on the Iranian encyclopaedia editors that have access to similar resources can expand the article easily. SunDawn (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN. (non-admin closure) Ashleyyoursmile! 03:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABS-CBN Insider

ABS-CBN Insider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced, and I suspect this is an unfamous defunct Philippine newscast/programme. The only link here, an archived link, seems not reliable. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of ABS-CBN programs. No sources, at the very least. GinawaSaHapon (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN: Barely found anything about the newscast. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Gordon

Adrian Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does pass NCRIC in its current form and although there's a bit of coverage it's not from a reliable source, however none of the matches and his performance were really notable and there's not enough coverage for GNG. No suitable list to redirect to either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCRIC. scope_creep^Talk 21:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One-day matches he played in did not hold List A status, fails CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area

Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't find sources, appears to be original research. Doug Weller talk 20:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There's sources in the article. You seem to have just nominated it because of my edit to South normanton. It is able to be kept maybe read the Built up articles discussion on WikiGeography? Nomis site is reliable in it is an official stats site and this can be kept as it was in a discussion on the page. Maybe head there before AfD nomination and claiming original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 2021-04-17T20:26:09 (UTC)
• Delete This fails WP:GEOLAND as a non-notable census tract. These “Built-Up Areas” were auto-generated and auto-named by the ONS for the purpose of analysing census data ([1]). There has been no wider uptake of this term, nor any in-depth discussion in reliable sources, so it also fails WP:GNG.—--Pontificalibus 20:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I just found toe articles here from Derbyshire site https://observatory.derbyshire.gov.uk/a01-alfreton-and-somercotes/. And https://observatory.derbyshire.gov.uk/b05-south-normanton-and-pinxton/ And the nomis is accepted as reliable for stats and built up areas.

  Also try here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#New_articles_on_built-up_areas — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 2021-04-17T20:46:58 (UTC)

• Keep its not a census tract, census tracts are arbitrary parts of districts that have a number and letter attached to them (example) but this is a named geographical census area and unlike many such as Grimsby built-up area that can be merged into their single location this is a BUA named after multiple so probably shouldn't be merged. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I meant census area rather than tract in its narrow sense. The point is this is some auto-generated thing that has zero notability and fails all our notability guidelines. Can you give any sources that demonstrate a human rather than a bot regards this as a built-up area, let alone any sources featuring actual discussion of said area rather than simple statistics? Just because there isn’t a merge target doesn’t mean there is any valid rationale for keeping it. --Pontificalibus 21:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The names are also auto-generated so I dont think we can really use the name as a justification not to delete. Eopsid (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As NOMIS notes in the guide the locations are checked and some are removed such as industrial areas. In this case its auto generated which is surely more reliable! especially since modifications are made to improve the accuracy etc. The question is if an ONS BUA qualifies as being "legally recognized" for the purpose of GEOLAND? Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the content belongs in the articles about the places in the area, but the American and Chinese equivalents were kept based on similar sources. Peter James (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • This area is considerably smaller than all those American and Chinese ones though, at least the ones linked below. Also I'd like to point out I'm not a strong supporter of deletion, and think we should have articles on larger UK Built-up areas. Eopsid (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Everything in List of micropolitan statistical areas links to an article or redirect - the areas are a similar size to this. Many of them redirect to the county, but there are articles for those that cover more than one county. Peter James (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't particularly like those articles because they only have one source and dont have much information in. But you are winning me round to the idea of keeping this article. Eopsid (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete - I would support a merge, but theres like three obvious merge targets. I think we should delete but make mention of this built-up area in all the towns inside it: South Normanton, Alfreton amongst others. Its quite a loose conurbation of industrial villages connected by a large industrial estate, I think we'd struggle to find a source except the ONS one. I'm not familiar with the area though, maybe it has a different local name which does have more sources. Eopsid (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be merged to more than one article, or kept as a separate article as Baton Rouge–Pierre Part combined statistical area and Taoyuan–Zhongli metropolitan area were. Peter James (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I have found the Alfreton and South Normanton station, the Alfreton and South Normanton bypass, and even an Mansfield/Alfreton growth zone. No sign of this yet. The station and bypass should redirect somewhere, I think. Uncle G (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that I couldn't find anything, in conjunction with the research that then I did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, leads me to conclude that this too is original research that simply has not escaped its creators in 8 years and been used by geographers, cartographers, and others. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it necessary for an editor to create a contrived redirect, 17 April 23:44 UTC to Alfreton and South Normanton station? When there's already a contrived Alfreton and South Normanton railway station? Why S Normanton, when the station is clearly not. What's going on here? How about creating Alfreton and Somer-co-Tees?? The same handful of people manipulating WP to distort history and geography? The tail wagging the dog.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can only report the things that I found by the names that I found them. If you think those names contrived, you should take that up with the people who wrote the books. Good luck, as I believe that the author of Bulmer's History, Topography, and Directory of Derbyshire is dead. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found these https://info.ambervalley.gov.uk/docarc/docviewer.aspx?docguid=a7e04b5fce414980ae790f948e2ee944, https://www.doogal.co.uk/BuiltUpArea.php?area=E34004585, https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/cities/englandua/?cityid=10826 and the ones I listed before RailwayJG (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I created that redirect and I dispute that its a contrived redirect, Alfreton and South Normanton railway station has existed as a redirect since 2008. I just created one without the word railway in. And the Alfreton railway station article clearly states that the station was renamed to Alfreton and South Normanton railway station in 1891. There was no attempt on my part to distort history and geography. Eopsid (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Eopsid the fact is you would not have created the redirect unless prompted by the redlink created by Uncle G (based on an entry in a pre-1900 gazeteer, I understand) a few minutes beforehand. And of course readers will be queueing to search for 130-year-old terms. I did try to look at the gazeteer but wouldn't load.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - whilst I agree with deletion. I dispute that this article is Original Research, it is sourced [2]. Although I would consider that a primary source and not enough for WP:SIGCOV Eopsid (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GEOLAND, looks like 100% OR. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with deletion and that it fails WP:GEOLAND but can you please explain to me how its 100% OR? Almost everything in the article is sourced from [3], which is from the Office for National Statistics who I would consider a reliable source. Eopsid (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree I'm not sure where OR came from (unless you're talking about the places it contains) but the source does arguably make it a legally recognized place. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Burton upon Trent and Swadlincote Green Belt and Mansfield Urban Area should all be merged as they don't really have any big defining settlements. And Mansfield and Ashfield are relatively close as an urban area.

• I dont think thats relevant to this discusison, you may want to add merge notices to those pages. There are instructions how to do it here Wikipedia:Merging Eopsid (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Leamington Spa . No evidence this meets GEOLAND or GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (Nothing to merge/redirect to): a definition that has never been significantly used by reliable sources. ——Serial 15:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Johnston (actress)

Amy Johnston (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. The Hollywood Reporter obit notwithstanding, there's just not much in the way of coverage, and her credits aren't substantial enough. Not to be confused with the younger actress/stuntperson. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meeting GNG, multiple independent secondary sources writing about the subject. Including main media like MSN. SportsOlympic (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly passes the WP:GNG and most likely also WP:NACTOR #1. gidonb (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She did get entry on imdb, enough to be called Amy Johnston (I), with the younger actress/stuntperson being called Amy Johnston (II), who is in disambiguation page here on Wikipedia but not currently in her own article. Why nominate Amy Johnston (I) for deletion here on Wikipedia just after it's received some expansion here?

• Comment IMDb is not a reliable source. Her being in there in no way adds to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have multiple sources mentioning here death. That is enough alone to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Not sure why this was relisted a third time, consensus clearly is against deletion. Randykitty (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asid bin Kurz al-Bajali

Asid bin Kurz al-Bajali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I’d argue that as a Companion of the Prophet he’s inherently notable, and from memory we’ve kept articles about Companions previously at AfD. Companions are the most important source of hadith in Islam, and this one has eight sources. Mccapra (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If this individual is mentioned in the Haditha then he should be treated as any other religious figure. It appears that the individual is documented in Muslim religious sources. Are we going to start removing the names of minor Catholic saints next? Hyperion35 (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm not sure that simply being a companion of the prophet is automatic grounds for notability, neither is being mentioned in the Hadith. There are plenty of characters mentioned in the canonical books of the Bible which are not considered notable enough to have their own article. Similarly, there are folks who met Jesus (which is the qualification for being considered a companion of the prophet), who do not have their own article (e.g. Bartimaeus, Jairus, although both of those figures are covered in articles about the major events they play in the NT).Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I’m not suggesting that being mentioned in Hadith is the basis of notability, but that being the source of the Hadith is. This guarantees ‘sustained coverage’ in works discussing the importance of the Hadith one has transmitted. I agree not automatic notability, but I’d be generally wary of deleting a companion. Mccapra (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mccapra, hi - my Hadith comment above was directed at the second keep !vote. I appreciate your view on companion status, simply do not agree with it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Since there are sources at least mentioning him, I'd argue that redirect to List of Sahabah is more appropriate than outright deletion. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Companions of Prophet are considered notable, and since Mccapra has pointed out, "there'd be plethora of coverage" in the Hadīth literature. I tried searching online but Google gave me just multitudes of snippets from various books that I am not able to access. There is much more classical coverage offline. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 00:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bedwell, Missouri

Bedwell, Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I don't think this is a notable site. The non-GNIS source calls it a A railroad stop in the eastern part of Logan Township, named for Dave Bedwell, a prominent settler of Dickens Valley, which somehow got worked into this being an unincorporated community when this article was created. Searching is rather difficult, as Bedwell was a common last name of a family of businessmen in the relevant time frame. Found some appearances in old railroad timetables listing Bedwell as a non-standard stop after Ellington and before either Fruit City or Red Oaks depending on which year you look at. I don't think this site is notable. Hog Farm _Talk 18:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete GNIS cites this topo, which does not depict a notable community. I'll go with Ramsay's description of just being an old RR stop, perhaps where the Bedwells lived. Reywas92^Talk 21:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally not notable; the article is one sentence. How is this town any different than every other town in the US or even the world? Just because it exists doesn’t make it notable. Star7924 (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Voices

Black Voices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unclear notability, previously moved from mainspace to user space and reintroduced to mainspace without any substantial edits. nearlyevil665 18:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 18:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable at all, does not meet any notability criteria. Star7924 (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking notability and, it seems, content. Even on HuffPost it appears not to be a thing; when I follow the "Black Voices" tag on the Welcome to BlackVoices post, I come to a page with only 6 articles listed, two of which are ads ("45 Beauty Products You'll Be Glad You Own..."), while the other four are tagged neither "Black Voices" nor "BlackVoices". No idea what other HuffPost community categories there are in the world, but I wonder how notable any of them are. This one certainly isn't article-worthy. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to California Western Railroad#Route. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burbeck, California

Burbeck, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Yet another CWR spot, presumably named after the nearby creek. Some topos seem to show a very short passing siding here though I can't verify that. Not a notable spot. Mangoe (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is only documented as a stop on the California Western Railroad that I can see, and is already so in that article. Uncle G (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's likely that both the creek and the spot are named after Charles Leighton Burbeck, who has an in-depth biography in Carpenter and Millbury's History of Mendocino and Lake Counties, California (1914). No mention of the supposed town, though. (It mentions a subdivision set out by Burbeck in Fort Bragg, but that's far from where this article says Burbeck is.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to California Western Railroad#Route, where it is mentioned. All I could find was a development in Fort Bragg, some last names, and Burbeck Creek. Doesn't seem to be a notable site. Hog Farm _Talk 18:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Butch Francisco

Butch Francisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Narrowly escapes WP:G4 and WP:G11 due to rewording and small adjustments in content. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL by a long way. The passing mentions in Rotary Club are not enough as he is affiliated with that organisation, so they are non-independent, per WP:IS. Other references like Wikivisually and Facebook are not reliable and self-published, per WP:RS. Role in politics is way short of NPOL requirements. GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which is not found here.

Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE including a search of Filipino sources here. Only unrelated namesakes coming up. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Absolutely nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable for the purposes of guaranteeing him a spot in Wikipedia, and absolutely none of the footnotes are reliable or notability-supporting sources for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG in lieu of actually having to pass the inclusion criteria for any of his occupations. Bearcat (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. FWIW, I've blocked the editor of this article for undisclosed paod editing elsewhere, no idea if that applies here too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Recreated article. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Undisclosed UPE, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt: There's another person - a columnist - bearing that name, but neither of them are notable. This should've been speedily deleted since it's been around a couple of weeks since the article was recreated. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carmelray Industrial Park 1

Carmelray Industrial Park 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:ORG; a poorly sourced "directory". —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. GinawaSaHapon (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or draftify Non-sufficient number of reliable links to verify the information--Bormenthalchik82 (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bormenthalchik82: What's the point of draftifying an unnotable article? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Valogne

Catherine Valogne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article draftified since in it's current state it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Has been tagged for improvement for over a month, without any significant improvement, and moved back from draftspace, again without improvement. Searches turned up very little in-depth coverage. Still fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the French Wikipedia article is very lengthy but a lot of the sources are offline so it's hard to determine whether they are WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning Delete. The monographs mentioned in the French article (Pierre Descargues, "Le Jardin du Sculpteur Catherine Val et du Photographe Olivier Descargues"... and "Catherine Val, la clandestine" [biographie], Paris, Éditions Area/Descartes et Cie,) looked interesting, until I discovered they were written by her spouse. The French Wikipedia article appears to have been created by a SPA interested in Val and her spouse.--- Possibly (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Her 1962 book, J'aime le théâtre, seems to have been translated into German and Worldcat indicates there were 17 editions and that it's still held at nearly 50 libraries. Given the age, it may be difficult to find reviews of her books in on-line sources, although I found a reference to one review in Revue d'Histoire du Théâtre No. 55 (1962). pburka (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The French article is all very impressive at face value, but there are no reliable sources - and concerns about sourcing noted above tend to add more question marks. There may well have been a Daum edition of glass based on her design (150 is a small run, though), but there's no independent coverage presented. It feels very much like she was an arty lady of means, marginally worthy but certainly not "regarded as an important figure or widely cited by peers or successors, known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." WP:ARTIST uses the word 'significant' freely. I can see nothing of particular significance presented in the French article and nothing at all of significance in the English one. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mainly due to failing WP:V of the sources mentioned in the fr.wiki article. The English Wikipedia article at its present state does not weigh for WP:NARTIST. Chirota (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (nominator withdrawn). (non-admin closure) EpicPupper (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change and continuity

Change and continuity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Sources seem out-of-context, the article is a mess, jumping around multiple topics with no apparent logical line. EpicPupper 04:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 04:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - based on the article it is not clear this so-called dichotomy is really 'a thing' in the fields. Wikipedia shouldn't extrapolate such a general principle from individual instances where it could be said to occur, so for retention I would want to see this so-called 'change versus continuity dichotomy' itself being a topic of scholarly discussion in the literature of the respective fields. Agricolae (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as apparent synthesis. I can't seem to find any sources that actually discuss this concept in detail. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 16:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck following the linking of better sources by Extraordinary Writ below. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is a poor stub, but not so bad that it needs TNT. This is a question of historiography, into which editors without special knowledge do better not to interfere. It needs tagging for improvement, not deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm satisfied that this is a sufficiently major scholarly paradigm to justify inclusion. Google Scholar and Google Books are awash in examinations of this topic; some examples are this, this, and pgs. 3–6 of this. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Extraordinary Writ's find of sources.PrisonerB (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, unquestionably valid concept. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Normal concept, article is just confusingly written. 15 (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles James Fox (doctor)

Charles James Fox (doctor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is about a 19th century physician, but the text consists primarily of (a) obituaries quoted in full with no attribution other than a citation to "Family archive of the writer of this article", and (b) genealogical information about the subject's descendants. The article culminates with the text in Latin of a benediction (not translated into English). I don't see any indication that the subject satisfies the general notability guideline. Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article effectively concedes his lack of notability when it states that "the only known description of his life are (sic) the obituaries written at his death." My searches find no evidence that he was anything but a run-of-the-mill physician, albeit a charitable one. Barring additional coverage, he fails WP:NBIO. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be notable to me, has an entry in the Dictionnaire encyclopédique des sciences médicales and obituaries in The Lancet and The Tablet on 16 May 1874 and 23 May 1874 Piecesofuk (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nominator. Obituaries and genealogy doesn't quite cut it for an article in its own right. Evaline Nakano (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to WIBC (FM)#Local news and talk. (non-admin closure) Ashleyyoursmile! 04:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chicks on the Right

Chicks on the Right (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article was deleted and now has reappeared largely unchanged and with the same sourcing problem. I tagged it before as G4 but was denied. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to get others to help me improve this article and get it up to snuff, Wiki-wise. I must admit I'm confused as to why Zero Serenity seems to prefer getting the article deleted rather than working on bringing it to a point of rescue and redemption. He fought hard enough for deletion that he attempted to get it "speedy deleted". That was denied just a few hours later. He also repeatedly undid my undo attempts, which resulted in the page being locked for days, keeping me from working on it to bring it to the standards he would like the page to reflect. It appears to still be locked which prevents anyone from improving it. Another editor has already stated elsewhere that the article meets the required notability for it to be a page on its own away from the WIBC page. I tried to get him to discuss his intent and thought process at the talk page of the article, he pretty much refused. This is all confusing to me. It's always been my impression that creating and expanding on articles to bring them to Wikipedia standards is what Wikipedia folks are supposed to be focusing on, not deleting things that have a chance of informing others who search for info online. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about me. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 01:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Serenity, you have made deleting the article a mission. You've written articles about it that mission in Daily Kos. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/8/25/1972168/-Conservatives-don-t-understand-how-Wikipedia-works-again You have have been working hard to make sure this article dies, and from what you have written at your social media spaces and Daily Kos, it appears the entire effort is politically inspired. https://www.chicksonright.com/blog/2020/08/25/an-atheist-feminist-gamer-from-the-daily-kos-has-responded-to-my-wikipedia-post-lololololol/ You've done little in Wikipedia for the last several months, and in the last week you've done more related to getting the COTR page deleted than anything else since the beginning of the year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zero_Serenity Why not help me improve the article? It's possible, I can't do it alone, let's do it together. If you still won't do that, then I think it would be very clear the mission you have against this article and the subject of the article is very much about you. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hi there @Alaska4Me2. Please remember deletion discussions are for focussing on the article, not the contributor. Linking trashy self-published opinions pieces that attack editors repeatedly doesn't help prove your point. Personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Thank you, — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to WIBC (FM)#Local news and talk per WP:OVERCOME. The first AfD for this article seems to have ended with the decision that the topic was not notable enough to warrant its own article, and no amount of editing or improvement can overcome that. If a topic is not notable enough for its own article, that's all there is to it unless that level of notability changes over time. — Bsoyka✉ 02:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Onel5969#Chicks_on_the_Right An editor who removed the speedy delete request stated it does meet notability guidelines. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but the actual AfD debate ended with the decision to delete the article. Six people responded with either "delete" or "redirect", and the majority of the "keep" votes and comments came from outside canvassing and single-purpose accounts. Now, an AfD debate is definitely not a vote, but the result was that the article was to be deleted, and I don't think anything has changed enough in terms of notability and reliable coverage to affect that outcome. Bsoyka✉ 15:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since that previous deletion, I worked on the article, expanded it, added sources. It's not the same article. And it wouldn't be the article it is now if it hadn't been locked up and I could have worked on it further. Nominating it again to be deleted while it's locked and no one can expand it further is unfair. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Also, the article as it stands right now is more about the hosts than the show itself, and the important information about the show could easily be added to WIBC (FM)#Local news and talk instead of its own article. Bsoyka✉ 15:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to WIBC (FM)#Local news and talk per above. Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or Delete. The article was removed once, and with good reason it would seem. It just doesn't warrant its own article I'm afraid - but try telling that to all the canvassers! Evaline Nakano (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Alex Ajipe

Chief Alex Ajipe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article about a business person that fails WP:SIGCOV. Possible WP:PROMO and WP:SPAM, most of the sources are just passing mentions. TheChronium (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Per rationale by TheChronium. Celestina007 (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chitwood, Missouri

Chitwood, Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This one is a weird case. The Chitwood in Reynolds County was A railroad stop on the Missouri Southern in the southwestern part of Logan Township, named for Uncle Baty Chitwood, a prominent man in the county, according to the non-GNIS source. I can find nothing significant about the Reynolds County Chitwood.

However, there is also a Chitwood in Jasper County on the other side of the state, for which I can find some mining references and a description of Chitwood, a little business center in the mines lately added to Joplin, was named for the family who owned the store..

So our current article is presenting a non-notable railroad site as an unincorporated community. My inclination is to WP:TNT this, and if someone wants to write about the Jasper County Chitwood later, that may be an option, although it doesn't seem to be particularly notable, either. Hog Farm _Talk 18:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's not the article that's a "weird case", rather what's weird is why the mass-creation king who made this decided to write content that is inconsistent with its source. The GNIS cites the same Ramsay list of source 2 (so we've got a case of circular referencing), not USGS topo maps, which don't indicate a community. Reywas92^Talk 21:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not really circular, as there isn't a loop. But it is duplication. I suspect that there are a lot of Ramsay Place-Name Card Collection entries yet to come. Uncle G (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I found the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad instead, but otherwise much as Hog Farm. Uncle G (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MKT is gonna be for the Chitwood over by Joplin, as the Katy was on the west side of the state. Hog Farm _Talk 00:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://thelibrary.org/lochist/moser/reynoldspl.html has less than we have. Uncle G (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danny (futsal player)

Danny (futsal player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No SNG available so Danny is required to pass WP:GNG; best sources found were a couple of match report mentions, one in Sapo and another in Ojogo. Other than that, we have three routine announcements about renewing his contract, which offer no depth 1, 2, 3. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Thomson (footballer, born 1988)

David Thomson (footballer, born 1988) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and the WP:NFOOTY consensus that you have to have played more than one match in a fully professional league to qualify for a standalone article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - oh dear, not good at all. --Huligan0 (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesnt meet notability guidelines for athletes. Webmaster862 (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't matter if he played one game or 100 games, if there is no WP:SIGCOV then the subjects fails WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep passes NFOOTY, and still has active career.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deggendorf Institute of Technology

Deggendorf Institute of Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. Just removed a large amount of text that read like a promotional brochure added by an employee; even the rest of it reads that way. It's been marked as an advertisement and needng sources since 2013. I could only find websites related to enrolling in the institute. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While previous versions may have been problematic, the subject certainly seems notable to me, due to coverage in many sources. I added a couple to the article, but you can find much more searching in German. None of them reveal anything particularly special about this local higher education institute, but they all clearly constitute independent coverage in reliable sources specifically about the subject. wikitigresito (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As it does not meet WP:GNG Or WP:NCORP -It clearly does not have sufficient independent coverage to meet WP:NCORP or even the WP:GNG. That it is being used by a company representative to make important updates is a side issue. Some PAID editors do good work. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra I agree, just noting that's how I got here. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you consider the sources that I added? There are multiple articles from Bayrischer Rundfunk, clearly an independent, high quality source. Kindly also note that this is a government institution and not a company. wikitigresito (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't draw a distinction between public and private entities. They both must still meet WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it does not make a difference if it is public or private. What makes a difference is that the subject clearly meets GNG. Could you kindly explain on what grounds you dispute the independent, reliable sources that I added to the article? wikitigresito (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You made a point of mentioning that this was a government institution. In any event, the sources you added are not significant coverage of the subject, and only cite routine information. It does not contribute to notability to cite a statement that this institution has constructed buildings on campus. All universities or colleges do that. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether activities are "routine" or not for an institution does not determine whether coverage on them is significant according to our guidelines or not. Coverage on the performance of a piano player does not become insignificant, just because all piano players give performances. Please also not that these two articles are just few of many more. Consider, for example, the following: 1) (major national newspaper, exclusively about the campus), 2) (local newspaper, research and university-industry linkages project), 3) (local newspaper), 4) (local newspaper, long article on the school's sports teams), 5) (long interview related to music festival hosted by students) 6) (looks short, but full article behind paywall, local newspaper on history of the institution), 7) (national newspaper, exlusively on new study programme at the school), 8) (local newspaper, Chinese delegation visiting). wikitigresito (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my opinion, but appreciate hearing yours. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete dpes not meet the notability standards for organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is still presumed notable, since it meets WP:GNG and is not excluded under WP:NOT. wikitigresito (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly notable. Plenty of sourcing, as with any tertiary institution in Western Europe. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article isnt very good, but universities are notable. Rathfelder (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rathfelder Universities are no longer presumed notable just because they exist, they must meet WP:ORG just like any other organization. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must be confusing secondary schools (which are no longer automatically presumed notable) with universities (which are). Nothing whatsoever has changed as far as presumption of notability for universities is concerned. Long precedent is to keep all accredited universities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp Respectfully, that's not how I read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which says "The current notability guidelines for schools and other education institutions are Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG)." It goes on to say that most accredited universities may have enough coverage to meet WP:ORG, not that the mere existence of the institution is sufficient. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that Universities are no longer presumed notable suggested that you thought universities were covered by the RfC (which actually, of course, quite specifically only covered secondary schools, but which some editors seem to believe has crept out to cover all educational institutions). In reality, the presumption of notability for universities and the consensus at AfD that they are notable has not changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, there is no super-notability criteria for universities, as far as I am aware, they must still meet WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you're aware, consensus at AfD is important. Consensus is that universities are notable. I don't recall any degree-level European higher education institution ever being deleted at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the article does nothing other than state that the institution exists and names its offerings? I'd be interested in seeing where that consensus was established. If so, then SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be changed to match, because it currently states as I note above. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Plenty of independent in-depth coverage, e.g., Süddeutsche Zeitung. 15 (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The profile in Süddeutsche Zeitung clearly constitutes more than routine coverage. Attention by a newspaper of this standing usually points to the existence of a plethora of solid local coverage. Yes, some of it does not rise to the level of secondary coverage but the articles in Idowa are substantial and promise more in-depth coverage behind a paywall (which should not be rejected per WP:SOURCEACCESS). This institution, like most other universities, meets WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny Watford

Destiny Watford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Engaging in one sucessful environmental project is not notability DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Weak keep, I'm more minded to deletion with the article in it's current state. But winning a major environmental award makes her notable. WCM_email 08:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear keep the Goldman prize is a clearly internationally important and reputable award, its the "nobel" of environmental action, Sadads (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have started revising the article and adding more sources to further support WP:BASIC/WP:GNG/not WP:BLP1E notability (she was not low-profile before or after; the success was significant and her role is well-documented), and WP:ANYBIO notability seems clear, e.g. the Goldman Environmental Prize is described by The Weather Channel as "the "Nobel Prize for the environment," which is awarded to only six individuals representing each of the world's continents." Beccaynr (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep After Beccaynr's improvements, the article looks perfectly fine to me - the notability guidelines are met - there's enough of IRS covering the subject in depth. Less Unless (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added additional information to denote ongoing activity and accolades. Crystalontheweb (talk) 20.35, 01 May 2021 (UTC)
• Keep amended article meets notability guidelines Kaybeesquared (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Díaz Island

Diego Díaz Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable. A web search, using both the English and Spanish names, returns only the Wikipedia page. This location cannot be found on Google Maps. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Google maps brings it up no problem. I’ve found and added one further source. Passes WP:GEOLAND Mccapra (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The island's existence isn't really the problem here, NOTABILITY is. And, since the island is apparently unpopulated and has no notability about it, it does, indeed, fail GEOLAND. GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The island exist. It is sizable. It is historically relevant (events mentioned by Claude Gay) and relevant enought to be included in the book Diccionario Geográfico de la República de Chile. It would be far-fetched to claim reputed scholars like Claude Gay and Francisco Astaburuaga write about non-existent or an "irrelevant" island. Sietecolores (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It still does not pass GNG: two mentions of an unpopulated place does not qualify as Significant Coverage; and, again, the mere existence of a place does not indicate any notability whatsoever. Do you have a policy-based reason to ivote keep? —or do you just not like the deletion nomination? GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A web search, using both the English and Spanish names still only returns this Wikipedia page. A search of Google maps today asks me to Add a missing place to Google maps. I don't doubt the island exists, it's just that when I search for it using Google maps it is not found. The inclusion of the island in a Gazetteer (published in 1899) does not confer notability, however notable the author. The Arauco War, according to Wikipedia, lasted from 1598 to 1753. Not every action and location in this protracted conflict is worthy of mention. The fact that Claude Gay mentions the island does not confer notabiliy. Whatever Gay said or wrote about the island might be worty of a mention in his Wikipedia article, though I doubt it. The island might be worth mentioning in the Biobío River article, perhaps. As the island is apparently unpopulated it is unlikely that this orphan article will be expanded beyond a few sentences.2A00:23C6:3B82:8500:B873:6A79:37E:C6AC (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The valiant efforts of Mccapra still leave me thinking we haven't achieved WP:GEOLAND here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYTA

DYTA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Was deleted through prod last fall. Nothing but listings, with no indepth coverage, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BCAST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree clear fail of WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article seems to have more sources unlike before. Sources 1 to 3 state that the station is licensed by the NTC as it indicates an operator having a station. Same goes for source 4. Source 5 mentions the program director of the station. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:BCAST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Superastig.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - neither being licensed by the NTC nor having a program director are elements of WP:BCAST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being licensed is an element of WP:BCAST, as unlicensed stations have a higher bar to clear, and having a reliable source mention the station's program director supports the assertion that the station is the "originator of some programming", which is an element of WP:BCAST.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tdl1060, sorry, no it's not. While unlicensed stations cannot meet BCAST, having a license does not satisfy BCAST. And you are making an assumption when you say that having a director of programming supports the assertion that the "station is the "originator of some programming". It simply says that the station has programming, without giving any indication as to whether or not that programming is original, which is an aspect of BCAST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:BCAST per Astig's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Econochrist

Econochrist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:BEFORE search does not show very promising result. Fails WP:NMUSIC and GNG. Graywalls (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This search gave me a result from a 1990s rock magazine plus discussion in other books about punk music, indicating this did leave a mark on the punk music community. An archive.org search gave me contemporaneous coverage of the band from HeartattaCk (including an album review and this issue that not only reviews split singles of the band but also makes comparisons to the band in reviews of other releases), several results from Maximum Rocknroll (including this this that talks about another magazine interviewing them, this that reports on another magazine interviewing the band plus covers one of their releases, a review that makes an Econochrist comparison and many others), Profane Existence (such as this piece where a journalist calls the band one of his favorites) and so much other magazine coverage I couldn't fit it in this discusssion. The coverage, interviews, and constant mentioning of the band in punk magazines plus the same in retrospective books on punk indicates this is a notable topic. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus, lots of retrospective coverage in rock and punk sources plus publications like Vice and newspapers. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I did notice them when I was doing the WP:BEFORE search. Which ones show significant coverage? I did find a ton of bread crumb coverage like "A promoter in Sacramento had booked the top acts from the East Bay punk scene, including legendary bands Econochrist, Green Day, Crummy Musicians, Filth, and Sam I Am", but a bunch of short snippets of superlatives like "legendary bands like"... (appear in a list of bands) don't amount to significant coverage in the sense of WP:GNG. So, let's see examples of actual SIGNIFICANT coverage. Finding bits of car glass from the street sweeper bin that amounts to several whole windows can not be added up to mean the same thing as finding two whole windows. Graywalls (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC) I also inspected Maximumrocknroll, and I see no WP:SIGCOV @HumanxAnthro: Graywalls (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there has been enough coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Vice, Maximumrocknroll and others identified in this discussion to enable a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enea Kadiu

Enea Kadiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Promotional autobiography about someone who does not meet WP:NFOOTY as they have never played in a national professional league. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and WP:SALT as well - this is the third time that this article has been here recently (previous two were speedy deleted). None of the references provide significant coverage and, in fact, most don't even mention him. A search comes back with next to nothing; best sources found were a deletion discussion on him in Simple English Wikipedia, his Soccerway profile and a squad list. Non-notable as a footballer, non-notable as a beach soccer player and non-notable in futsal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not close to being notable.--Mvqr (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - oh dear, not good at all. --Huligan0 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt or block User:Enea94 from editing as it's clear they are not willing to comply with our COI requirements and will probably try and recreate the article yet again. Number 57 10:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is consensus that this is not notable at the moment. Several !votes are for draftifying, but also acknowledge that no reliable in-depth sources can be found and draft space is not for storing articles on the off chance that sources become available soon. Randykitty (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Euphoria (visual novel)

Euphoria (visual novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources (WP:VRS), such as WP:VG/RS.

The only review is from Capsule Computers, which accepts volunteer writers and does not appear to be reliable (noticeboard mention). I am not sure about the content of The Anime Encyclopedia, but assuming significant coverage of the game (and not the anime), that would make 1 source. Every other source are product pages, directory entries or very brief listings -- nothing that would come close to significant coverage. The game has simply not received reviews from reliable outlets. Mainstream Western magazines of the time would not have covered an eroge game and I have no way to search adult-rated Japanese magazines on the off chance they have. Custom reliable source search does not return any usable results.

(Article moved to mainspace from declined draft, so taking to AfD since draftify no longer applies. I previously reviewed and declined the draft on the same notability grounds, although a couple new sources were added since.) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• user:Hellknowz, this lacking of reviews is due to a irrelevant filter, that rejected the following list. I have asked for calling off the filter:
  • [4]
  • Euphoria (PC): Beyond Horror, Beyond Hentai, Beyond Art
  • Euphoria VN Review
  • Games for Adults Halloween: euphoria
  • What Is This Feeling? A Euphoria Game Review
• אילן שמעוני (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  These are not reliable sources (unless you can demonstrate author credentials, editorial practices or oversight, and history of credibility of the outlet, such as use by other reliable sources). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are the deemed unreliable? Each of them is a lengthy, in-depth review.

  Forgot to mention, the following review is on its way to the references: [[5]] אילן שמעוני (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What makes them reliable? Anyone can make a blog and start posting reviews. See WP:RS for what makes sources reliable and WP:VG/RS what in particular makes reliable video game sources. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm, I see your point about blogs, I should check later weather these blogs have proven widespread influence. However, this review is from an established review site, that according to Alexa stands nicely in the front row of such sites. אילן שמעוני (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - All of the above reviews are from blogs, which are unreliable, since there is no editorial oversight. That's the issue with them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 17:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's safe to say that major outlets wouldn't cover this due to its extreme subject matter. Whether you think that's a flaw of the notability system that something disgusting but with high production values could get ignored, the fact is that it would undoubtedly be considered non-notable and fails WP:GNG with the current sources provided._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If new sources are found and this survives deletion it should be moved to Euphoria (video game).--67.70.101.238 (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a Visual Novel, not a game. The text-to-play ratio lies heavily for the text (and other means of VNs). Also, it's euphoria, not Euphoria. אילן שמעוני (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This discussion came to the exact opposite conclusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_95#Visual_novel_as_a_genre and I haven’t seen anything newer to discount that. Also, attempts to remove visual novels form List of video game genres have failed for the same reason. Finally there was a clear consensus in December 2020 to move Clannad (visual novel) to Clannad (video game) for reasons similar to what I mentioned. Long story short, the idea that visual novels are not video games is not the current consensus.--67.70.101.238 (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ZXCVBNM, how does this review fails to fit in as a notable source? It is (among other things) an established review site, with a cadre of writers and more than adequate Alexa score to witness for its notability. אילן שמעוני (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Even established sites like that may not count as WP:RS, and Alexa scores do not count in determining reliability. For Wikipedia's standards, which are very stringent, Lewdgamer would be a WP:SELFPUBLISHed source. Often, if something is not from an established and widely-recognized news organization, websites are vetted by experienced Wikipedia editors to determine if something can be counted as a reliable source or not. For anime/manga-related topics, for example, you can find a list of reliable sources here: WP:A&M/RS. Sandtalon (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You didn't get my meaning as to the significance of Alexa rank: it proves this site/online magazine is accepted and popular. As to the rest of your arguments, I think they are circular. Instead of arguments why this site isn't a valid source, The claim is basically "it's not a reliable source because it isn't".

  I am aware of the recommended list for anime and manga, however none of the sources there specializes in eroge, as evident by searching for explicit eroge coverage. This one does. It stands through what Wikipedia need as a reliable source on its subject. It holds a cadre of editors and journalists and cover the genre pretty well. Really, it's all that we can ask for in an eroge valid source. It's mission statement fits in perfectly - LewdGamer aims to raise and improve the standards of the adult gaming market by giving it proper criticism and deserved recognition.

  Of cource, you may think that explicit eroge shouldn't be covered in Wikipedia. This is a valid sentiment, but with Wikipedia's coverage of hardcore porn I believe it is moot. אילן שמעוני (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  All that being said, I think we should discuss adding lewdgamer.com to the reliable sources, for eroge content. Would you object raising this in the anime and manga sourcing? אילן שמעוני (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want it to be added, raise it on the talk page of that list of anime/manga reliable sources. Also, with the Alexa thing, just because a site is popular doesn't mean that it is reliable. To give an extreme example, the Daily Mail is very popular, but it in no way is reliable. Popularity is no measure of reliability. As for circularity--yes, it is kind of circular, and you can take issue with Wikipedia's epistemology (I don't think it's perfect myself), but the fact remains that it is the English Wikipedia policy that has been reached by consensus. (The specific guidelines are: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.") Sandtalon (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Some private view, not affecting this discussion: I have heard about euphoria years before I actually read it, and from many sources (none of which is acceptable as source. I talk about discussions in forums, reddit etc.). So for myself, I am sure of its notability. Of cource, the fact I know this is irrelavent. But I will say - euphoria stands out high in the genre for its depth as well its high-quality delivery of a very shocking story. Both its fame and notoriety preceded it - years before it was translated to English. אילן שמעוני (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was able to find two sources from the Japanese language wiki article. https://www.menscyzo.com/2021/04/post_189102.html this one is run by Cyzo [ja] and is an adult-oriented news site. Not entirely sure of how credible this one is https://otapol.com/2017/08/post-83121.html. curious if other people think just the first one would satisfy WP:GNG. Daiichi1 (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe OTAPOL is published by Cyzo as well. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Here's two reliable sources for the article: https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2014-08-09/mangagamer-adds-euphoria-the-house-in-fata-morgana-eden-visual-novels/.77467 and https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/press-release/2016-05-21/mangagamer-announces-new-titles-hardcopies-and-anime-expo-guests-at-acen/.102369 I may add them shortly, or someone else may. (In addition, and I know this isn't in the GNG or anything, but I would be in favor of inclusion because it has an anime adaptation, which to me, indicates at least some amount of notability.) Sandtalon (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  These sources are not significant coverage and are only a little better than press releases (one of the is a literal press release). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep is a solid decision at this point. At this point it is safe to say that numerous sources point to the same mark. While individually they may not follow the "trusted source" guidelines, the sheer number and the fact that WP:A&M/I totally lacks any coverage of eroge sourcing that may be used are less relevant. As a side note, the unhealthy issue of no trusted sources for eroge content must be addressed. אילן שמעוני (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not how WP:GNG works. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:GNG is irrelevant to a genre that it does not cover. Using WP:GNG as-is will dictate deletion of any explicit eroge content. In other words, as of now WP:GNG is not relevant to extreme eroge content.

  This is an issue that should be addressed, either by less-preferred discussions such as this one that struggle to determine each article by itself, or by a definitive guidelines how valid sourcing of such content must be done. Since the latter is not available now, we are forced to cast verdict by the former. As I said the sheer number of less-than-acceptable sources combined proves notability. I admit that I do not like this procedure but as it stands its the only thing we can go on. Again - as is, extreme eroge is out of the scope of WP:GNG. Please address this argument. אילן שמעוני (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am still undecided. Daiichi1 did some great finds, as both sources he cited have non-trivial coverage of the VN and seem reliable. However, WP:GNG says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." And that is the case here, where both are owned by the same organization, Cyzo. So we'd still need more, and I will try to check all possible Japanese sources and hope to find something. ANN citations above do not establish notability, as the first one is citing the announcement, and the second one is an actual press release (WP:PRIMARY). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, leaning Weak Keep: From what I've read in the AfD, it is possible that the required sources needed exist, but I'm not quite convinced yet. Link20XX (talk) 04:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The above sources do not constitute significant coverage. It would be impossible to write an article that does justice to the topic based on the above sources: The ANN articles cannot be cited for anything, being a press release and an "article" that almost entirely quotes another source. Someone with a stronger stomach than me can wade through the Cyzo articles' reliability, but those citations are not strong enough on which to base an entire encyclopedia article.
  As for the argument above, no, the GNG applies to this topic as it universally applies across WP as policy. There are many topics subject to systemic bias on WP based on cultural import and lack of third-party coverage and yet extreme eroge is not one of them. czar 05:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Also do not draftify. If the source material does not exist, draftifying is an end run around AfD. None of the below material has satisfied the aforementioned fundamental lack of sources. czar 18:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Czar, can you please elaborate on the GNG applies to this topic as it universally applies across WP as policy. There are many topics subject to systemic bias on WP based on cultural import and lack of third-party coverage and yet extreme eroge is not one of them.? I did not get what it means. אילן שמעוני (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every article on Wikipedia is justified through significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (the GNG) There is no exemption or "out of scope" from the GNG, as implied above, nevertheless an exemption for "extreme eroge" topics. czar 22:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there should be such exemption. else any article about a subject that did not yet got a list of reliable sources gets automatically deleted, which is a. an absurd, and b. bad for WP declared intention to cover all subjects. In such cases the list of reliable sources must be expanded to cover the neglected subject. Alternatively, some subjects (such as extreme hentai) may be declared "out of bounds" - I personally don't think this should be done, but maybe that's just me. Following the rules is good, but when the rules are found lacking common sense should be used, and the rules should be updated. It surprises me that I am quite alone here who see this as a problem that must be addressed. אילן שמעוני (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A source does not need to formally listed as a reliable source on a project's list to be considered reliable. Editors are expected to assess sources for reliability on an ad hoc basis in AfD threads, and often do. That said, I don't mean to speak for Czar, but they didn't primarily dispute reliability here, but rather the significant coverage prong of the GNG. — Goszei (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but now I'm really confused. One of the sources above is a site with multiple registered reviewers (i.e. not anyone can come and publish a review) and at least one editor. In what this site fail to be a source? I thought it's because it's not listed, but apparently that's not a consideration. And another thing - English is not my native language, and I fail to decipher but rather the significant coverage prong of the GNG. אילן שמעוני (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:GNG can be thought of as three main prongs: significant coverage, reliability, and independence. Editors have generally agreed that an article should be kept if it has more than one source that satisfies all three conditions.

An example of a source that lacks significant coverage is one that only says the topic's name. An example of a source lacking reliability is a blog. An example of a source lacking independence is a press release from a company.

I think most of the discussion above is about whether the sources given are blogs or not. Blogs are not reliable because anyone can make one and say anything they want. The things that separate an average blog from a reliable source are usually (1) evidence that an author was published somewhere known to be reliable (2) there is evidence of meaningful editorial oversight (3) the source has been cited by other sources known to be reliable. — Goszei (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To address the LewdGamer review in particular, I think the editors above have raised concerns because we don't have any information on this Rillania person ([6]), and the authors of the editorials on the site ([7]) are similarly just anonymous people on the Internet ([8], [9], [10]). It seems to fall under a "fansite" or "blog". "Reliability" is a bit of a confusing concept on Wikipedia, but it captures the ideas of "credibility" and "authority" of a source. — Goszei (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so I did a bit of searching - basic stuff. LewdGamer has About 400,000 results in Google, and one of the reviewers has over 6,000. I think 400,000 results are well above anything that the editor/admins/site reviewers can reasonably generate by themselves, and over 6,000 seems to me significant. All said, I stand by my claim that LewdGamer coverage of euphoria us a valid source, though obviously others disagree. The high Alexa rating also hints for a site that is popular and not some niche blog, I believe. אילן שמעוני (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and do not draftify. Fails WP:GNG. None of the sources mentioned above are significant and reliable and independent—and, in fact, most are none of those. I looked for sources with the WP:GAMESOURCES custom Google searches and found nothing. Woodroar (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC) 2 weeks later: updated my !vote because I don't believe this is worth being draftified, either. Nobody has been able to find sources that are significant and reliable and independent. LewdGamer certainly isn't reliable, as discussed here. Other editors have mentioned MensCyzo.com and Otapol.com but given no reason why we'd consider them reliable. They don't bear any of the hallmarks of reliable sources, which I outlined here. I empathize with editors who've worked on the article, but here's the thing: if reliable sources are found next year or next month or tomorrow, we're going to have to start over no matter what. We don't write articles and then find sources to support our claims. The sources absolutely need to come first. If sources turn up, or if MensCyzo and Otapo are somehow determined to be reliable, then we'd still need to write the article based on them. Literally everything here is original research or based on unreliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. LewdGamer.com answers the criteria for a reliable source. LewdGamer coverage of this title is quite extensive, following both VN and anime releases: [11], [12], [13], [14] and more. אילן שמעוני (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LewdGamer is not a reliable source. Copying my comments from your WT:VGRS thread here: The writers are pseudonymous with no indication of a background in journalism. In fact, anyone can register an account on the site. There's no masthead listing their editor(s) or editorial policies. They are cited only a handful of times by reliable sources, which suggests that they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required by WP:RS. Woodroar (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again - registering doesn't grant any access to write articles. Point about pseudonyms is correct, but I don't think it's relevant. there is a clear mission statement: LewdGamer aims to raise and improve the standards of the adult gaming market by giving it proper criticism and deserved recognition. אילן שמעוני (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's relevant. Everything is relevant. Read our guidelines at WP:RS, our supplement at WP:RSP, and discussions at WP:RSN and WT:VGRS. We need to be able to evaluate the article, the author, the editor, the publisher, and how reliable sources treat the site in question. The site itself tells us nothing about itself and reliable sources largely ignore it. The fact that they'll tweet out some vague editorial statement but won't add a masthead or name their editors or writers speaks volumes here. Woodroar (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided one more source as to LewdGamer reputation, including name of editor etc. LewdGamer is a reliable source, for the topic in question, eroge gaming. אילן שמעוני (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources for euphoria notability:

In this article euphoria is one of two chosen examples of art style.

This article is cited, among others by Joleen Blom, Utrecht University. Also - I do not know if this is of importance - in Lukas R.A. Wilde: Kyara revisited: The pre-narrative character-state of Japanese character theory.

.

Sources for LewdGamer credibility:

DailyDot, Mission statement and editorial team, Ethics policy, Citing LewdGamer as a trusted source, including irl name of LewdGamer founder and quatations, interview with one of LewdGamer editors, and most importantly a case in which LewdGamer reported unethical conduct of one of its sponcers. This conduct on behalf of LewdGamer is a firm testimony of high standards.

VisualNovel.info, has columns by editors with irl names. cites LewdGamer as source. אילן שמעוני (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

another notability reliable source: CapsuleComputers. Mission statement. Staff. euphoria review. אילן שמעוני (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the Daily Dot article? Because it's thoroughly critical of LewdGamer, their staff, and their coverage in general. It also points out their connection to Gamergate—though the site's "head content editor" has walked back their stance to "neutral". The DD article alone is enough to discredit LewdGamer. That a bunch of unreliable sites like visual-novel.info cite them is irrelevant. As I mentioned earlier, a few reliable sources do as well, but it's minimal and suggests that they aren't reputable. The DD article explains why that is.

CapsuleComputers doesn't appear to be a reliable source. They have named writers and editors, yes, but I'm not seeing any background in journalism, and they also don't appear to be cited regularly by reputable sources. As for the Image journal source, it's a single mention in a caption, which is beyond trivial.

I suggest reading the policies and guidelines that I linked earlier. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—it has to be all of those, at the same time—not "the subject is mentioned somewhere online". Similarly, source reliability depends on a variety of factors, including the identities and backgrounds of the writers/editors and how reputable media views them, not simply real names publishing something on a website. Woodroar (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is false for the topic at hand. The criticism is regarding LewdGamer acceptance of controversial topics such as rape of minors - which is one of the backbones of extreme eroge.

The rest of the criticism is about LewdGamer's fans Free Speech policy. - again, irrelevant to our discussion. Please read carefully what the criticism is about. It bears no relevance to the issue of the LewdGamer's reliability.

The claim regarding CapsuleComputers lack of reputation from reliable source is also false. It is cited in The Observer in an article about the computer game Metro 2033. (btw, it is also cited in WP article Nero (Devil May Cry), just a tidbit).

Looking into the sources provided more thoroughly before issuing such claims is advisable.

I have already read the policy articles you mentioned.

אילן שמעוני (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding It also points out their connection to Gamergate - this also, is false. Nowhere in LewdGamer itself there is support for GamerGate threats, and the editor-in-chief denounced GamerGate in twitter. Here again you attribute fans comments to LewdGamer itself. This is once more mixing LewdGamer's strict policy of free speech with LewdGames stance. I understand (and sympathies) with the anger about GamerGate, but it has nothing to do with LewdGame stance. BTW, in case you missed this - I think euphoria is beyond morally wrong. But it's an important, notable and all too popular game. Do not mistake my will to have an article about euphoria with identifying or accepting it. אילן שמעוני (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to bring up CapsuleComputers at WP:VG/S or WP:RSN but I doubt you'll get a different answer. Source analysis is something I've done for years, both on Wikipedia and in my day job, and there's nothing remarkable about CapsuleComputers. They don't appear to employ professional journalists or editors, and they're not cited by reliable sources. Looking through Google News, virtually every mention of "capsulecomputers" is in an image credit—ironically, mostly for content they don't own—and not for their original reporting. That's true of the Observer source you mention. (Also, that's a student newspaper, so we wouldn't consider it a reliable source in any case.)

And back to LewdGamer, the Daily Dot clearly considers all of this important: "It’s hard to write about LewdGamer without mentioning Gamergate", "LewdGamer came about during Gamergate’s first few months, and Caldwell himself was an initial proponent of the hashtag", Caldwell "no longer supports Gamergate...But the language he uses in the Discord and the way his staff manages LewdGamer is endemic of a larger problem in the porn games world", criticism of the "adult news site’s community standards", "catering to a readership that acts like Gamergaters", "squeamish editorial world sending smut peddlers to a site filled with readers complaining about multiculturalism". The Daily Dot criticizes the readers, yes, but it's also criticizing LewdGamer's editor(s) and staff for cultivating that readership. Woodroar (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, based on User:אילן שמעוני's effort to look for sources. Although some question the reliability of them, that can be discussed outside AFD. enjoyer -- talk 23:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is having spent effort in any way related to notability? They have not demonstrated that they understand RS. And AFD is literally the place to discuss if the reliability criteria of sources for GNG is met. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problem is that in this discussion the question regarding source reliability started honest, then answered then started to slip ever closer to non relevant moral judgement of the sources. All the questions regarding source validity had been addressed, the rest is just irrelevant rants that do not contribute to the discussion and create white noise. אילן שמעוני (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • If moral judgments have been made about LewdGamer, they've come from the Daily Dot source. And I wouldn't even call them moral judgments, but the DD pointing out serious breaches of journalistic ethics—like siding with GamerGate, an obviously false harassment campaign. Look, there's only so much direct source analysis that we, as editors, can do. We can see if a source's writers are professionals (in this case, no) or if their editors are professionals (no), or if they have a masthead (no), or if they've won any journalism awards (no). But eventually, we need to look at how reliable sources treat LewdGamer to see about that "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" requirement. Do reliable sources cite LewdGamer? Only a handful of times, and always with attributed statements to make it clear that it's their source making the claim. Do reliable sources discuss LewdGamer as a source? Only in that DD article, and with plenty of criticism. So at best, LewdGamer isn't a reliable source because there are so many unknowns. At worst, LewdGamer is an unreliable source because the only reliable source speaking to their reputation is decidedly negative. Woodroar (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Czar. When you look at the full scope of what the WP:GNG and WP:RS entails, the bar is simply not met with the sources discussed so far. Sergecross73 msg me 11:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer: LewdGamer is also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Reliable sources to cover extreme sexual gaming. While there aren't many participants, at least two (as of this edit) other experienced editors have questioned its reliability. Woodroar (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I have requested help on Japanese Wikipedia, suggest to wait to see if there is a response in few days. אילן שמעוני (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unfortunately I have to agree with the general consensus that LewdGamer is not a reliable source, nor are most of the other sources presented. Link20XX (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Like I said before in the discussion, I tried to look for native sources to establish notability. Sadly, I wasn't able to find anything aside from Cyzo coverage, making a fail of WP:GNG which requires multiple reliable significant coverage of the subject. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't rank 58 in The Visual Novel Database enough for notability? אילן שמעוני (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it is not enough. Your issue is that there aren't enough reliable sources that would be enough to keep this article, regardless of "popularity." Popularity is not notability, and 58 isn't as high of a number as you are making it out to be. As The Visual Novel Database is itself a wiki (they even state so on their front page) it is not reliable. As I've stated before, print sources may be your key to keeping this article. lullabying (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: The article in itself has problems mainly with WP:ORIGINAL, as I can see some original analysis in the article that is not present in any of the articles. I'm inclined to give it a second chance because it does have a manga adaptation and an OVA adaptation, so it's somewhat known. However, sourcing still does seem to be an issue. Perhaps you can try looking for print sources. lullabying (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. I concur mainly with lullabying. Searches for sourcing have not produced a satisfication of GNG, but the ones found do uniformly mention the game's notoriety/infamy in the eroge community. A manga adaptation and an OVA adaptation are further suggestion that there's some notability here. I think this circumstantial info is enough for a second chance at finding sources. — Goszei (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • lullabying and User:Goszei, can you please point as to what seem to original research? TIA. אילן שמעוני (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Mostly the anime doesn't follow the virtual novel plot, it rather display scenes that could fit into each of the plot lines"; ""Apart from having the same characters, it bears little resemblance to both the virtual novel and the anime"; these are statements that are based on opinion. Unless these are statements specifically made by a reputable news source I would advise against including them. But let's not get off topic and focus on the bigger issue at hand, which is the lack of sources this article has. lullabying (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really don't know what to say to this. It's based on knowing the VN, anime and manga content. However, if there's an agreement that it should not be there, I will remove it if no one else would. אילן שמעוני (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's still original research because these are editorialized opinions or individual interpretations that are not present in major sources. lullabying (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, you're pretty much describing original research. Sergecross73 msg me 23:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability: The game ranks 58 in popularity in The Visual Novel Database. It also has top rankings in several categories. Safe to say this covers notability. אילן שמעוני (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That doesn't indicate notability since The Visual Novel Database is a user-submitted database, meaning anyone can edit entries. The front page even states "This website is built as a wiki, meaning that anyone can freely add and contribute information to the database, allowing us to create the largest, most accurate and most up-to-date visual novel database on the web." This means that the source may be unreliable. You should probably look towards print sources as I've previously suggested. lullabying (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It rather shows quite accurately popularity, as it's voter's base is over 14,000 people. If a VN is very popular (rank 58 is really high) isn't that denotes notability? Surely, WP has to cover the top VNs there are. I would be very surprised if not. אילן שמעוני (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Popular" doesn't mean "notable." See WP:POPULARITY. lullabying (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Popularity is only related notability in the sense that the more popular something is, the more likely a subject is to have third party significant coverage. It doesn't help if you can't find the sources though. Page views at an enthusiast website absolutely doesn't prove notability in the Wikipedia sense. I feel like multiple people have already mentioned this. You really gotta drop this approach. It's a dead end. Sergecross73 msg me 23:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may be dead end, but I appeal to common sense. There are no sites that covered this topic, hence we can only judge popularity through other means, and The Virtual Novel Database is an excellent place to judge VNs popularity. אילן שמעוני (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per lullabying and Goszei. Link20XX (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly support draftifying, but if it goes that route there needs to be some sort of condition there, like WP:SALTing and/or requiring sending it through WP:AFC first or something, because there's some WP:IDHT sentiments going on with some of these keep votes. Sergecross73 msg me 00:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRAFTIFY says AfC is used in cases like these, which was my assumption when commenting above. I don't think a pre-emptive salt is needed unless something unseemly happens. — Goszei (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally already been moved from draft to mainspace with the edit summary "problems fixed". That same editor currently doesn't understand how it doesn't meet the GNG. Not hard to see where this is headed a couple weeks after the article is draftified and no one is paying attention anymore... I'm just saying I don't trust their decision making on the topic of notability or reliable sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 01:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the innuendo that I would try to sneak it back. This ad-hominem is totally uncalled for. אילן שמעוני (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiples editors now have informed you of the very basic concept of "popularity =/= notability", and yet you continue to fight against it. It's not an adhominem, it's that I fundamentally dont have faith in your understanding in policy and guidelines, and that's why I don't trust you to make call on draft publishing. Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citing you: "Not hard to see where this is headed a couple weeks after the article is draftified and no one is paying attention anymore" is a blunt suggestion that I will not adhere to basic rules. This us ad-hominem per se. While you may think I do not understand some rules, insinuating I will blatantly go against basic rules is a personal accusation, and yet you attempt to cover it with excuses.

In this discussion it is evident that while I am at the stage of learning EN:WP rules, I adhere to them. The question of reliable source, for example, went on to me doing evident effort to find sources that adhere current guidelines. There is no basis to the accusation I will blatantly try to work behind the back of the participants in this discussion. This is both unethical conduct and a direct breach of WP basic ideology. I do not deserve this. אילן שמעוני (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats...a bit extreme, but I've struck that part and clarified my point. I still stick with what remains though - your views on reliable sourcing and notability dont currently gel with enwiki's approach, and you're exhibiting a lot of IDHT behavior. That's a valid reason to suggest that, should it be draftified, that it require some sort of extra review before being published, whether that be by AFC, an Admin, or community review. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. The point is I regard rules and consensus as what counts. I do try to persuade, but it's evident here that the majority judgement as to the rules, in my view, greatly outweighs my own judgement about how the rules should be applied. I have tried to open a discussion regarding some modifications to the rules, but not for euphoria which is most likely doomed to be deleted. The point is - discussion, persuasion by arguments, consensus. I totally accept this, and this guides me throught my work in HE:WP, where I function as monitor and apply rules I do not agree with. אילן שמעוני (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General questions: I am familiar with the rules on HE WP, not EN WP. Does breaking a long discussion using secondary header accepted, When a lengthy discussion has clear division? Also: Is mentioning users that participated with delete/draftify/keep considered "canvassing"? (new term to me. We use "rallying"). אילן שמעוני (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? אילן שמעוני (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is under a level three heading ("===") so any subheadings should be level four or greater ("====") though split headings are usually discouraged. It's fine to mention users who have participated already when there is new information or a genuine question for them, but mentioning prior participants just to pull them back into the discussion would be badgering/canvassing. czar 18:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft: I worked on the page a little bit and I'd rather not have everything deleted. Euphoria is certainly notable in the visual novel genre, but I don't think it quite meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines yet. Not really familiar with Wikipedia's polices, but finding credible sources for this game seems next to impossible at the moment. I'm fine with keeping it in the drafts until anything new pops up. Morganstedmanms (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines based upon the sources on the article and those brought up in this discussion - reliable sources that cover the topic do so in passing or are a press release, and sources that cover the game more extensively like 'LewdGamer', are unreliable. Waxworker (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Free Talk Live

Free Talk Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The radio station doesn't seem notable. Nearly all sources are primary, taken from the radio's website. A quick Google Search doesn't bring up any substantial secondary information about the station. BeŻet (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2007-12 Free marketeer Redirect

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete page of self-promotion currently incarcerated. One host seems to have absconded from justice. --JamaicaBeachVolleyball (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs aired by GMA Network. Missvain (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GMA News Digest

GMA News Digest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced, and I suspect this is an unfamous defunct Philippine newscast/programme. Worse, it is stubbish. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not even a full program, just a newsbrief title. Not needed. Nate • (chatter) 17:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Nate's reasoning. Fails to meet notability for programming. Also unsourced. GinawaSaHapon (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find any IRS to make the subject pass notability guidelines. Less Unless (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of programs aired by GMA Network: Barely found anything about the newscast. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Godavari Institute of Engineering and Technology

Godavari Institute of Engineering and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-Notable college. Can't see even two reliable, in-depth coverage. Just profile links Sonofstar (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi - I created this article a couple of years ago (it has been the victim of promotional edits atleast on one occasion in the past that I've reverted, but the article is not really in ideal shape now). The article currently has 2 links to news articles (from The Hindu and one more). Additionally, here are a couple more links below. I created this article since I used to live in Rajahmundry (where this college was located) and it was probably one of the biggest engineering colleges around and got featured in the news regularly (albeit primarily in Telugu newspapers like Sakshi (newspaper) or Eenadu), in more depth than the English newspapers. Unfortunately, both of these newspapers don't have very accessible online archives (they store their daily newspapers as images on their website making it very hard to search through them). I could try to improve this page a little bit after a while.
  • https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/160318/rajahmundry-engineering-students-develop-electric-bike.html
  • https://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Andhra-Pradesh/2018-09-12/Tech-utsav-Medha-to-be-held-on-Sept-28-29-in-Rajamahendravaram/411358

KNivedat (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I have done WP:Before this school have sources only from thehansindia.com which is not very reliable. Rest, deccanchronicle is not giving indepth coverage about the school, its just a line. Sonofstar (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article establishes no grounds for notability. "The college has hostels, playgrounds, canteens, a park, and quarters for staff." Wow. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the coverage is way, way below WP:ORGDEPTH standards. Passing mentions and sources controlled by the institution do not confer notability at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Suffering from promotional writing. It fails to attain required standard of WP:NCORP being a private educational institute. Chirota (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Godfrey Edwards

Godfrey Edwards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails NCRIC and there's no real coverage in an internet search. His performances in the tournament suggest it's unlikely there will be coverage in Wisden or offline. No suitable list to redirect to either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Again fails WP:NCRIC. scope_creep^Talk 21:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One-day matches he played in did not hold List A status, fails CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Playing at the highest level in and for the Netherlands, he is included in several articles. I miss in-depth coverage. gidonb (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green theory

Green theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is no "Green theory" subfield in International Relations. As far as I can tell, the entire article is based on one textbook chapter where an author uses "green theory" as a term for any research related to the environment in International Relations. While environment and environmentalism are indeed studied by IR scholars, there is no "green theory" of IR Theory. The body of the article is an enormous essay where all kinds of non-"green theory" scholarship is characterized as being "green theory". While green politics[15] exists and "green political theory" might exist[16], there is no "green theory of International Relations." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is obviously a student's essay that's entirely original research. The entirely unencyclopedic tone throughout, owing in part to the frequent of the use of first person "we" and the synthethic "seems", make this unsalvageable. Reywas92^Talk 03:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a textbook or place to workshop your International Relations 101 essay. KidAd • SPEAK 22:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and because most of this article is incomprehensible. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I struck part of my rationale because of the cogent arguments given below. This is a classic TNT case where a useful article could be written, but nobody should first have to try to salvage anything from the attempts that have been made so far. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. -Roxy the sometimes happy dog. wooF 08:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I actually think this particular article needs a WP:TNT level of cleanup, and deleting it outright wouldn't be a huge loss: that being said, a very quick Google Scholar search brings up more than enough sources showing this is clearly a notable topic, see for instance this chapter written by the head of political science at Melbourne Uni and published by Oxford; perhaps this is the one mentioned by the nom, but there's plenty of scholarly works available over multiple countries and textbooks. SportingFlyer T·C 20:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In addition to the chapter "Green Theory" in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity above, there are plenty of other sources. For instance, extensive chapters in:
  • Paterson, Matthew; Doran, Peter; Barry, John (2010). "Green Theory". In Hay, C.; Lister, M.; Marsh, D. (eds.). The State: Theories and Issues. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-80227-8.
  • Tienhaara, Kyla; Downie, Christian (2019). "Green Theory and the G20". In Slaughter, Steven (ed.). The G20 and International Relations Theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78643-265-0.
  • Dyer, Hugh C. (2017). "Green Theory". In McGlinchey, Stephen; Walters, Rosie; Scheinpflug, Christian (eds.). International Relations Theory. E-International Relations. ISBN 978-1-910814-19-2.
  • Lawson, Stephanie (2015). "Green Theory". Theories of International Relations: Contending Approaches to World Politics. Polity Press. ISBN 978-0-7456-9513-6.