The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. appears to meet GNG 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WAVE Trust[edit]

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

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

Kept a decade ago at ANI, but a BEFORE shows no coverage that would meet our current standards of notability for organizations. It exists, and has some political support, but does not appear notable. Star Mississippi 20:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Courtesy @Obsidian Soul and John of Reading: as still-active editors from prior AfD. Star Mississippi 20:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Star Mississippi:, I do not remember editing this article. Was this an AfC? I do not appear in the history either. Unless I was in the ANI discussion, in which case, it's too long ago for me to remember what it was about and I'll have to recuse. I don't participate much in internal discussions these days.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • No worries, @Obsidian Soul:. You'd !voted Keep in the AfD and I wanted to notify all editors from that discussion who were still active in case anyone wanted to weigh in. No need to participate though. Star Mississippi 13:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, in addition to the sources uncovered in the previous AfD, there is a speech about the WAVE Trust by Iain Duncan Smith (the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions) on the UK government website.[1] SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Other quality independent sources from google books: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:51, 27 September 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 23:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking the Century Away[edit]

Smoking the Century Away (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Previously deleted in 2004, recreated and expanded, but still doesn't establish notability. Fails NBAND and GNG. Will note that [9] does not count as a source for establishing notability since it falls into the other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording exception. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt. I could find no independent quality RS. Fails WP:NBAND and GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:46, 28 September 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical Archaeology Society[edit]

Biblical Archaeology Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Seems to fail WP:ORG and as a WP:FRINGE society does not seem notable. I don't really see good sources on which to write an article about this group. jps (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hershel Shanks. The reliable source coverage seems to consist of obituaries about the founder of this organization. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hershel Shanks. I agree that there's no non-trivial coverage of the organization itself (as opposed to Shanks) sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. In such cases, a redirect is a reasonable ATD, and in any event does no harm. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to either Shanks or to Biblical Archaeology Review; it's largely notable as the publisher of the latter, but Shanks himself isn't an unreasonable target. Mangoe (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (changing my vote) seems to be a notable publishing body, amongst other things. I'd like to see the basis that this organisation is WP:FRINGE, seems to be a spurious claim by the Nom?. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and retarget non-BAR publications to here (e.g. Archaeology Odyssey should point here and not to BAR). Redirecting to Shanks isn't good, since the Society is much larger than Shanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a promotional article on an organization with no obvious claim to notability. Two sources, none of which seems that reliable. Dimadick (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing promotional in the article. It's a mainstream society, as far as religious societies go, and publishers several mainstream biblical research things. And I say this as a big fricking Atheist that thinks the Bible is a load of mostly nonsense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:FRINGE is an inaccurate characterization, since their flagship publication, BAR, is quoted all throughout multiple decades from the 80s onwards in popular newspaper coverage of biblical archaeology articles. Accepting the nom at face value would be like trying to delete Carl Sagan because he wasn't that distinguished of an astronomer. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you may have confused this Afd with the one for Hershel Shanks. This AfD would be more for something like the Committee on Planetary Protection which was founded by Sagan but doesn't inherit notability from him. jps (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or at least Redirect. The nom, who also made a wrong claim of WP:FRINGE at his Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblical Archaeology Review seems to be a man on a mission. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just the publication of Biblical Archaeology Review is enough to make it notable, but it is a publisher of books too. It is also joint publisher with the Israel Exploration Society of The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land which is a serious reference work written by experts (5 volumes, editor Ephraim Stern). It needs to have more sources and be expanded as articles on organizations usually are. Zero^talk 14:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant publisher of books in field. Free1Soul (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant publisher of books in field.4meter4 (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No opinions to keep, but because of low participation (only one opinion other than nom's) this should be considered a soft deletion. The article will be undeleted on request. Deor (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Hayat[edit]

Yves Hayat (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 two collections mentioned would make him meet NARTIST, if the collections were art collections. However, one is a monastery and one is a perfume museum. Apparently an autobiography as as well, which makes me doubt the neutrality of the claims. A draft of the same article was previously declined at AFC and then deleted. --- Possibly ☎ 15:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 15:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 15:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 15:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.Possibly, I am seeing quite a lot of publications in French on art including him. Much of it is in snippet view, but I am inclined to think that quality independent RS with significant coverage does exist just browsing through the sources there. Did you look at google books?4meter4 (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: I read French so those entries would be no problem for me. However I still do not see anything significant. There is a French Yves Hayat who was involved in the disco scene as possibly as a music promoter. The Guardian says that "In 1977 Yves Hayat was a youthful label manager working for Barclay Records with a couple of solo LPs and a spot of production work under his wide leather belt." Here also is disco Yves performing on French TV as a robot musician. (Disco Hayat may actually be notable...) Another YH, and this might be the same one, was the co-editor and publisher of an art magazine. His name appears frequently here, but his bio does not mention anything about being a publisher. Our Yves Hayat gets mentioned a lot in something called Art Cote d'Azur, but it is usually a name check. I still cannot find SIGCOV of the artist Yves Hayat. If you have some links in mind I would be happy to look at them. --- Possibly ☎ 03:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, This source may indicate he is part of a museum collection? That's just a guess on my part. In looking through, most others that are art related are about the editor of Galerie Magazine. I also wonder if the artist and editor are the same person? If they are I would say there is enough RS to pass BASIC. However, without proof it's a delete for me.4meter4 (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: that source is talking about the art magazine editor Hayat. I do not think it is the same person. The Musée d'Art Moderne de Paris also does not list a Hayat in their collection. --- Possibly ☎ 01:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Just for clarity for the closer, I am voting delete per Possibly's reasoning.4meter4 (talk) 02:30, 28 September 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical Archaeology Review[edit]

Biblical Archaeology Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

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

Seems to fail WP:NJOURNAL. Though it has a high circulation, this is among ideologues and so WP:FRINGE applies here. Is it identified as a notable fringe journal? I do not see that as being the case. jps (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hershel Shanks. After hunting through Google Scholar, I couldn't find that this journal gets cited much. Not notable, although its founder might be based on significant coverage. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- What is "among ideologues" supposed to mean in this context?? The purpose is to present archaeological research related to things Biblical to a non-specialist audience, and it's achieved a fair degree of success doing it (not to mention its role in unsealing the Dead Sea Scrolls etc.). It's a lot like "National Geographic", "Scientific American" etc. (though with a more limited audience). Of course it's not going to have a high scholarly citation index, since it's not the type of publication for which that's relevant. Does "National Geographic" have a high scholarly citation index? AnonMoos (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The difference is that Scientific American and National Geographic are demonstrably notable publications. I cannot find evidence that this one is in the same league. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I said it had a smaller audience, but that's not necessarily a reason to delete the article. I'm not too impressed by the fact that you didn't really know what type of publication BAR was when you nominated its article for deletion. Have you ever actually seen and looked through an issue of BAR? AnonMoos (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not too impressed by the fact that you failed to notice that I didn't nominate the article for deletion. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep The very first GHit for Hershel Shanks is his NYT obit, which strikes me as plenty good enough a source for the notability of the magazine. WP:FRINGE doesn't apply; anyone who had actually read the magazine much would be aware of that. Mangoe (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Mangoe, since when is notability inherited? --Randykitty (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the obit? Mangoe (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did and I agree it is an interesting source that could be used in an article about BAR, but I think it may be just about the only source we might be able to use. Can you find any others that provide the context we would need to write an article about this publication? I'm trying to imagine writing an article solely on the obituary of its founder, and that doesn't strike me as a reasonable endeavor. jps (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually rather surprised at the difficulty in finding discussion of it, but then, I'm currently beset by people insisting that articles on housing subdivisions be kept on thinner support. The obit mention does contain an assertion of notability right along our lines. Mangoe (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was never one for the "notable keep" arguments that didn't explain how to write an article, but I understand that in other venues this is not uncommon. For me, the problem is exactly what we are discussing. Using this obit as the sole source for the article strikes me as maybe indicating that this is better as a subsection of some other article. jps (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable publication/journal, passes WP:NJOURNALS easily (indexed in scopus and many other). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Headbomb. The nomination seem very close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. StAnselm (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I note this article is 16 years old. StAnselm (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Journal has been around longer than Wikipedia has. Jclemens (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the nom's suggestion that WP:FRINGE applies, I find it entirely too polemical for serious consideration. The belief that the Hebrew Bible represents, in all or substantially all of the included accounts stated to be historical, actual history which would in turn leave archaeological evidence consistent with those accounts, is held by well over a billion Jews, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, and adherents of various other faiths. WP:FRINGE is not for things that have historically been mainstream, regardless of whether or not it is currently fashionable to disbelieve them vehemently. Jclemens (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jclemens: So by extension, creationism is not fringe biology? And flat earth theory is not fringe physics? – Joe (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a non-sequitur WP:WAX argument that doesn't follow from my comments, so Mu (negative). Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't follow, then. All those theories have "historically been mainstream". Or is archaeological knowledge uniquely subordinate to what the faithful believe? – Joe (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Mu (negative). Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Biblical archaeology is one thing, fringe biblical archaeology is another. The real question is whether the claims of this publication are actively being noticed by outside sources, or whether it is just devotional literature of a sort. I haven't been able to find good sources which indicate much more than they seem inclined to publish attributions and archaeological finds that are dubious at best. Now, fringe journals can still be notable, but we require independent sources to show their notability lest we end up with WP:SOAPy articles much as we are finding we currently have. The way to argue against my point is to offer sources, not to complain about what billions of religious believers may find interesting about the publication. jps (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are far too focused on one article (which I admit, were I Shanks, I would not have published). I subscribed for a long period back in the 1980s and '90s, and at least then, it was exactly as I have described: a sober, popular journal presenting information on archaeological discoveries in the Middle East from patristic to early Christian times. It's not, as is implied by some negative responses here, a journal dedicated to a "biblical" mindset. As a popular work one would not expect it to be cited except for its faux pas (e.g., the mention of the black Egyptians flap back in 1989, which is mentioned in a Wash. Post article on the larger issue), and, well, one gathers there weren't a lot of them that caught the eye of people willing to devote ink to them. It isn't as though they promoted the Gospel of Jesus' Wife, for example. Mangoe (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy to grant you this is the story, and as such I would love it if we could write about this in the article. Of course, it is always interesting when journal capture happens or when something like a shift from mainstream to fringe occurs. I am just coming up empty on finding any sources that discuss the journal. That's my frustration here. jps (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what fringe biblical archaeology is, as opposed to mainstream biblical archaeology, but am relatively certain that if there is a distinction, that BAR is substantially not fringe, at least for the majority of its early heyday, as noted by Mangoe above. I've never made a habit of engaging with much of fringe since I did some repair work on Acharya S back in 2008; I've certainly not made a Wikipedia career of it, nor have I ever had to navigate a topic ban from the area, so I grant that there may be some nuance I'm missing here. Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think WP:FRINGE applies here, as the article does not contain far-fetched claims. The main problem is that the article lacks sources, and does not include anything substantial about the magazine's impact. If we can not flesh out the article, there is no point in keeping it around. Dimadick (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, could you take a gander through what's noted in the Google Scholar AfD link and let us know what sorts of the many references there would seem to be best/most useful to expand the in-article sourcing? Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's some that could stand to be looked at a bit more closely [10], [11], [12], and [13]. Perusing through the first few pages of the Google Newspaper links shows that BAR seems to be cited extensively in popular press articles on relevant topics. How should such coverage best be incorporated into the article? Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Simply incorporate reasons why the magazine was cited in the press, along with which publications cited it. Dimadick (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Dimadick, thanks for participating. For clarity, it is not a requirement than an article be the best version of itself (or even a good version) to not be deleted. Per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Per WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." You can read more at WP:RUBBISH. Suriname0 (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There's a substantial discussion above about belief and FRINGE that seems largely irrelevant to whether the article should be kept. In addition to meeting WP:NJOURNALS, the article meets WP:GNG: the bylined NYT obit, other coverage from the Times, and other news sources identified above together provide sufficient evidence of notability. Suriname0 (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or at least Redirect to Hershel Shanks per keepers. But I see no reason at all why WP:FRINGE should be invoked. Very weak nom. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Famous magazine for popularizing archaeology. It is too sympathetic to biblical maximalism for my liking, but that's not a deletion reason. It is also, unlike the claim, cited a fair amount, but it is a magazine rather than a scientific journal so citations don't have the same meaning. One reason it is hard to find citations is that it is usually just cited as BAR instead of spelling out the name. The fact that everyone who publishes in archaeology or middle-east history knows what BAR means is evidence of notability. I'll add that as well as articles that would make any atheist cringe, there are plenty of serious articles by serious scholars. Often articles are popular versions of the technical articles that the same authors have published in the academic journals. It is definitely not the case that this is a religious magazine, and that wouldn't be cause for deletion anyway. Zero^talk 14:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's quite a well-known publication - popular rather than scholarly, but certainly not fringe. It appears in many public and academic libraries. And it is a site where debates in Syro-Palestinian are given a public forum. I think it is definitely noteworthy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.141.162 (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with the coverage in the NYT, Publisher's Weekly and others there is enough coverage for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes GNG per Atlantic306.4meter4 (talk) 02:12, 27 September 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 07:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Butler[edit]

Monster Butler (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 film that was never finished or released, with no claim of notability strong enough to ignore its failure to ever get finished or screened. To be fair, the article was originally created before production collapsed, so it was a good faith creation at the time -- but the fact that production of films does sometimes collapse is precisely the reason why we don't immediately ascribe "inherent" notability to every film that enters the production pipeline, but rather require firm evidence of completion and release in the overwhelming majority of cases. But the only sources here are a couple of run of the mill casting announcements and a bit of stuff about one of the film's producers cancelling a later film festival appearance due to a protest by the film's crew -- but the cancelled appearance can just be addressed in the producer's BLP without needing a standalone article about a never-completed film production, and the initial casting announcements aren't significant enough to exempt this from WP:NFILM's requirement for actual release. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete incomplete film otherwise not notable - does not meet WP:NF. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable incomplete film. SL93 (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. On a side note, this should never have been made per WP:CRYSTAL to begin with.4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yet to meet notability standards for Films. Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 18:38, 27 September 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 07:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Menges[edit]

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

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

BLP with possible undisclosed paid editing. It may be a WP:NPROF pass but the citations in Google scholar don’t seem very high and I don’t see any other claim of notability so bringing here for consensus, Mccapra (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No academic research cited, and has a very weak claim to WP:NPROF. Two references cited go to 404. As per nom, looks like an SPA and undisclosed paid editing. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NPROF and GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (withdrawn). (non-admin closure) jps (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hershel Shanks[edit]

Hershel Shanks (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:PROF and perhaps was being promoted by ideologues. WP:FRIND says we should look for independent sources and there appears to be only one mention in The New York Times. I do not think being the most influential amateur Biblical archaeologist is necessarily notable for Wikipedia unless there is more attention paid by legitimate sources (which this article sorely lacks). Being sued in Israeli Supreme Court is not an indication of notability. Nor is appearing in pulp TV shows. jps (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is reliable source coverage of Herschel Shanks in the context of his obituary: New York Times, Washington Post, Jerusalem Post. While I used to think articles like this should be deleted, a lesson in community consensus from many years ago strongly disagreed with my point of view, so I am saying "keep". When my username was Amatulic I started the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Wagner (vintner). Apparently, an obituary in NYT is an automatic qualification for notability. I disagreed with the notion that a non-notable person becomes notable just because he died and he got an obituary, but community consensus was unanimous against me. Meeting WP:BASIC criteria is the overriding factor. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The obit coverage found by Anachronist goes a long way, and other sources like this one and this one push Shanks well over the notability threshold. The article obviously needs work, but it's not hard to find sufficient sourcing to write a neutral article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Shanks was an "everyone in this field knows about him" figure, probably the best-known popularizer of middle eastern archaeology after National Geographic. The obits speak clearly to his notability, especially as spread out as they were geographically. Mangoe (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A NYTimes obit is certainly a sign of notability. If you don't like that, however, there appear to be plenty of book reviews for WP:NAUTHOR notability: 2 at Kirkus [14], 4 at PW [15], at least 2 that I see in the NYTimes [16] [17]. That's just on a pretty casual and limited search. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has SIGCOV, in particular obit coverage (New York Times, Washington Post, Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, Christianity Today is quite diverse). There's also quite a bit of coverage pre-dating his death in a google-news search over the past decade. Also quite possibly passes NAUTHOR with multiple books that are probably reviewed (they certainly have several citations each).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Searching Google Scholar for intitle:"Hershel Shanks" turns up several more book reviews, an in-depth biographical article from well before his death [18], and what appears to be a journal special issue in his memory with a couple of reminiscences [19] [20]. So he appears to pass WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR, without even having to evaluate whether his journal editorship work also gives him a pass of WP:PROF. Noted, by multiple independent reliable sources, implies notable. At this point it is looking like snow. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant indivdual in publishing recognised around the globe in branches of academia, and everyone has a angle but his was significant. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. His work in the field of biblical archaeology clearly surpasses the threshold of notability for the reasons several others have pointed to above. To this may be added his significant legal career, which in addition to his work as a practitioner included several publications; the law practice and legal writing might not be notable in their own right, but if there were any possible doubt that Shanks was notable (which I don't think there is), they would help nudge him over the line. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:17, 22 September 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 Nefesh B'Nefesh. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Yehoshua Fass[edit]

Rabbi Yehoshua Fass (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 except for connection with Nefesh B’Nefesh . Almost all the refs are about the organization. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or redirect per meeting WP:SIGCOV. [21][22][23][24][25]. It's also plausible that additional sources exist in Hebrew language sources. TJMSmith (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If the article is kept, it should be moved to Yehoshua Fass (per WP:NCP), which is currently a redirect to his organization Nefesh B'Nefesh. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Of the five references offered above, three are all about the organisation, one is an interview that looks and read like PR and one is an apology, again regarding the business. Its seems what coverage there is, is about the business. I dont have confidence that Rabbi Yehoshua has independent existance outwiththe organisation. scope_creep^Talk 08:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal solution is a redirect. scope_creep^Talk 16:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a redirect is also appropriate. Edited my comment above to note this. TJMSmith (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nefesh B'Nefesh.4meter4 (talk) 02:19, 27 September 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. Deor (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From Above (group)[edit]

From Above (group) (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 band. scope_creep^Talk 23:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- lomrjyo ^{(✉ • 📝)} 23:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep clearly passes WP:NBAND.Gravehoot (talk) 08:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC) Striking blocked sock. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This person is a SPA who came in this morning. scope_creep^Talk 08:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A classic case of WP:INHERIT. There is scant coverage and almost all of it is based on their association with Matthew Knowles. JSFarman (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:55, 28 September 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) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Harbour (Toronto)[edit]

Grand Harbour (Toronto) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Condominium towers in a city with many. Little or no discussion of the topic in media. Nothing substantive anyway. No architectural awards or merit that I could find. Fails WP:NBUILD Alaney2k (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Already two sources cited. I suspect there were more available during construction that are not published online. NemesisAT (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An article by Hume is not enough. The guy writes about real estate for the Star. Alaney2k (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is significant coverage in offline sources. See below. These in conjunction with the sources in the article pass GNG. There is also likely other coverage in Canadian newspapers.4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Daniel K. Ray (1991). Water Works, 1991: A Survey of Great Lakes/St. Lawrence River Waterfront Development. Harbor House Publishers. pp. 10, 60. ISBN 9780921578062.
• Adele Freedman (1990). Sight Lines: Looking at Architecture and Design in Canada. Oxford University Press. p. 186. ISBN 9780195407105.
• Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront (1992). David Crombie (ed.). Regeneration; Toronto's Waterfront and the Sustainable City : Final Report. pp. 290–294. ISBN 9780660144009.

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

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

The result was merge to Dark lord. Sandstein 10:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Overlord List[edit]

Evil Overlord List (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Although this list is entertaining, it doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources. About the only incident related to this list that is covered in reliable sources is the Darville plagiarism incident which is already covered in Darville's article. Most of the other sources cited are either primary, blogs, fictional works and others that don't count towards WP:GNG, nor can I find significant coverage elsewhere. (t · c) buidhe 15:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or merge. An amusing piece of geek Internet history trivia, but in the current state it is close to needing WP:TNT and it has major GNG issues. My BEFORE found this, which is sadly not an entire book dedicated to this, but it is named after it, and the topic is discussed in the two-page long foreword by the editor (Russell Davis (writer)?). There is another short mention here: [26]. The list has a number of other mentions. I think this might be salvaged, although it is rather borderline. Let's see if anyone else can dig up more usable sources.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's true that not very much has been written about it, but it's also often referenced in the context of saying that it is notable or expecting people to have heard of it (eg. "Peter Anspach's well-known Evil Overlord List"). OTOH, there's little possibility for expanding the article and some of the trivia should also be removed. I'm leaning towards weak keep in light of the fact that the otherwise obvious potential merge target, Dark Lord, is itself quite short and would be overwhelmed by a merge. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, I am actually leaning towards merge and redirect now. This would make a fine subsection in that article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 24 September 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 Katana ZERO. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Stander[edit]

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

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

BLP does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is largely inherited from Katana ZERO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: can you, MrsSnoozyTurtle, please explain how this article does not meet WP:AUTHOR per points 3 and 4, in your view? Because to me it's obvious that it does, and simply saying it does not meet WP:NBIO without any further explanation seems like a nonargument and a waste of everybody's time. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Might qualify for #3 but likely fails #4. Even then, the WP:AUTHOR section notes that "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." – "likely" meaning that this is an indicator, not proof, of notability. Notability still needs to be established via the usual guidelines. IceWelder [✉] 16:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Point #4: "The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention". You need to give "Katana Zero" one more Google if you think this is a "fail". 101.50.250.88 (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is, though, that no argument for deletion has been put forward by the nominator. That Stander's notability is "largely inherited" from his most popular game has nothing to do with meeting/failing WP:NBIO (quite the opposite actually - if anything it seems like an argument for keeping the article, noting that he IS indeed notable). 101.50.250.88 (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello Mr/Mrs IP. The reasoning is that meeting notability requirements independently of the existing article on Katana Zero requires coverage of the subject that does not relate to this game. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that's incorrect, notability can explicitly be inherited per WP:AUTHOR, a policy I've already presented to you once. Have a look at WP:INHERIT as well. I'll quote: "four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances". "Creative professions" in this text is a link leading to WP:AUTHOR. You're misunderstanding/misstating what the policy is and are yet to provide a policy-based reason for the nomination. I suggest this vote is brought to a close. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  INHERIT is an essay (not policy) on how to handle claims of inherited notability (which are usually bogus). AUTHOR is the guideline it references, and that only discusses the likelihood of notability as pointed out above; no guarantees. Please make an argument how WP:GNG is met. IceWelder [✉] 06:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't seem to understand WP:GNG and especially not WP:SNG. The only person here who has provided any relevant commentary on this article's notability is me. If you're actually interested in finding out whether Justin Stander meets your own idiosynchratic ideas of notability, look it up and make up your mind and stop wasting other's time. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's quite a bold claim from an IP account that apparently you are the only person out of four who properly understands the WP:GNG policy! Also, please read WP:5P4 and desist with the hostile attitude towards other volunteers here. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Out of four? Three editors have commented here, you, IceWelder, and myself. You yourself appear to be a junior editor from the haphazard manner this AfD was listed. IceWelder certainly isn't, but is it really a "bold claim" to say another editor is misunderstanding policy? Furthermore, is stating that it's a "bold claim" in anyway really relevant to the discussion? If you really do believe I've been uncivil, please read WP:UNCIVIL and consider focusing on the discussion by addressing the arguments I've made which you are yet to respond to, instead of basically only presenting the argument that I must clearly be wrong because I'm "using a IP account". 101.50.250.88 (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and/or redirect to Katana ZERO. There just isn't more than a WP:TRIVIALMENTION in most of the sources. I do appreciate that this short article didn't try to pad it out, and the verifiable information here could be a welcome addition to the article about the game in question. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is demonstrably false. 5 out of 6 references on that page are obviously not WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. I will list them here: [27][28][29][30][31] 101.50.250.88 (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. All of that coverage is in the context of Katana Zero. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Katana ZERO.4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Worth noting that while Katana ZERO (as seemingly acknownleged by both sides of the discussion above) is the work Stander is best known for, is also his most recent one. Half of their work from the last decade wouldn't probably be suited for their own pages due to having little to no notability and/or relevancy outside the competitions which they had been designed for. As such, it would be beneficial to relaborate the article to better acomodate those smaller games as an alternative to deletion. Furthermore, despite being presumptively indirectly responsible for the resulting present version of Katana ZERO, those aren't directly tied within to justify including them elsewhere if not in their author's own article, given the fact said article didn't exist beforehand, nor would be enough to justify it's notability alone in first place. I would be willing to elaborate further in this topic (and thus contribute to the article itself) if this solution could indeed be seen by someone else (preferably by someone more aknowledgeable with AfD in this regard) as useful for adressing the current issue given the nature of the situation. 2804:7F7:580:DE8C:2DC0:C3B0:9EF4:8C2A (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be worthwhile. Feel free to flesh it out. WP:BEBOLD101.50.250.88 (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a "Ludography" table so there's something for you to work with. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Free structuring[edit]

Free structuring (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 is a non-notable name for node–link diagramming. I searched in a variety of search engines and did not find reliable sources indicating notability. The claim by the person who allegedly coined the term that it is a "distinctive way of recording one's own thinking" only betrays ignorance of the use of such node–link diagramming in, for example, graphic facilitation and sketchnoting. Biogeographist (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: By the way, before MrOllie helpfully trimmed it, the original version of the article was also an WP:ADVERT for yet another node–link diagramming web app. Biogeographist (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Later it occurred to me that what the creator of this article was trying to express is equivalent to the common adjective freeform or free-form (see also wikt:free-form), "structure" being a synonym for "form". But there is no evidence that "free structuring" is a notable name for free-form diagramming, and Wikipedia is not for publicizing non-notable neologisms. Biogeographist (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Neologism. The only sources I can find are related to the advertised webapp, nothing independent or reliable. - MrOllie (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Biogeographist general node-link diagramming as linked is very different to what free structuring is. Sketchnoting seems to put emphasis on different elements and hand-drawing. Graphic facilitation is emphasizing hand drawing again. Digital tools enable more freedom in information structuring compared to anything paper based, therefore concrete examples (two very much different ones at that) were mentioned so that anybody can create their own impression. I don't think the trimming was actually helpful, because anything concrete is missing now. There is no history, no further leads. Free structuring is quite notable in the czech pedagogic community so this is basically a translation to facilitate better understanding e.g. when talking with partner schools elsewhere. The linked article by Barbora Jeřábková was published by the National Pedagogic Institute (NPI), which is a public institution related to the ministry of education. NPI creates e.g. the framework for education in public schools. To summarize, free structuring is putting a label on a specific approach to working with information that was researched for ~ 40 years by doc. Zdeněk Hedrlín. For this event, the mathematical community gathered for a whole day to commemorate his contributions. As the author of the article, I am quite open to improving it to help international audience better understand the concept, its significance and the history leading to it. It is my first article here, until now I only helped to make existing articles better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliszad (talk • contribs) 15:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This comment by the article's creator does not add any information that refutes the rationale for deletion. I looked at screenshots of the web app that was mentioned in the article, and what the web app does is very obviously node–link diagramming. Free-form node–link diagramming is often used in graphic facilitation and sketchnoting (among other kinds of visual organization), so I don't see anything "distinctive" about "recording one's own thinking" in "free structuring" as the coiner of the term is quoted in the article as saying. And of course mathematicians played an important role in the development of node–link diagramming software, and of course mathematicians with long careers often get commemorated in special events: none of that is a surprise, but it is irrelevant to this deletion discussion. And Kaliszad, if you are connected to the software in any way, you should disclose that. Biogeographist (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't meant to be about specific software, else I would write a specific article about OrgPad.org or OrgPad.com, which I haven't. Both are very different, the first being open source. I am involved with OrgPad.com as can be easily spotted because I use the same username on GitHub and it is linked there. I am not paid to write anything on Wikipedia or anywhere else and it is not my job to do anything like it. I am not sure at which screenshots from which software you have looked at. By looking at a horse carriage and the very first cars you could easily mistake one for the other. The same is with sugar or salt until you taste them. If you want to talk specifics about software that was mentioned in one sentence, please try it out first. You can use both webapps for free, so actually trying it out would be great if you consider deleting any work of other people. It is quite cavalier to write of basically life-long contributions of a person to multiple areas of study, such as category theory or graph theory. E.g. Václav Chvátal, a student of Z.H., came over from Canada for the commemoration and gave a talk. It is especially important, because doc. Zdeněk Hedrlín was in fact the father of the ideas behind free structuring. The article as is doesn't add much value to any reader, since you have collectively removed at least half of its utility instead of suggesting e.g. a better formulation. Perhaps it would be best to extend the article about Z.H. and dedicate a section of it to free structuring or the ideas behind it. That would perhaps take some heat out of the discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliszad (talk • contribs) 00:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is relevant to the rationale for deletion. Instead of continuing to talk about your software as you did in half of the content of the article you created, if you want to save the article from deletion then you should present sources that show the WP:NOTABILITY of "Free structuring" and use those sources to write an informative encyclopedia article instead of a few sentences that are so vague that other editors are forced to guess what it is supposed to be about. A Google Images search for OrgPad shows images that I would call node–link diagramming. If that is not what free structuring is, then why don't you edit the article and explain what free structuring is in a way that differentiates it from free-form node–link diagramming, using references to a variety of reliable independent sources? People shouldn't have to use your software to learn what free structuring is; it should be possible to learn what free structuring is simply by reading the article. The fact that you are telling people just to use the software to understand free structuring makes the whole purpose of the article look even more like an WP:ADVERT for the software. Biogeographist (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as neologism not in common use. If the editor wishes to provide material on Hedrlín's work, might I suggest expanding the article Zdeněk Hedrlín instead? That could really use some love, and some content beyond the bare-bones biographical material. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neologism without appropriate secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO.4meter4 (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John McClure (pilot)[edit]

John McClure (pilot) (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 not one reference is from an RS or not primary. References are: 1) a pilot roster; 2 & 3) photographs; 4) the subject's wife's obituary in the local newspaper; 5) what appears to be a self-written family history by the subject's nephew on a local community organization's website; and 6) a listing of members of the Tuskegee Airmen from the greater Indianapolis area. GPL93 (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. Intothatdarkness 22:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BASIC. Source analysis shows the subject doesn't have coverage required to establish notability.Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tuskegee Airmen are notable based on their Congressional Gold Medal (2007) and their historic role in the integration of the US Army Air Force We do not delete article when the subject meets our notability requirements. Notability for this WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Unit is notable and has an article, but individuals are not unless proven through significant coverage by reliable sources and literally none of the sources in this article are. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tuskegee airmen are NOT notable based on a Congressional Gold Medal (the group is), the Gold Medal wasn't awarded to this fellow individually, but to all 994 Tuskegee airmen, and it wasn't even physically presented to individual Tuskegee airmen; the only one made was "presented" to representatives of the group then retained by the Smithsonian. This fellow does not meet the GNG, as he personally does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Our guideline here is WP:ANYBIO - The subject passes 2 parts: 1. for receiving a well known and significant award, and 2. For his...widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. We have policy based reasons for WP:PRESERVING and finding WP:ALTERNATVESTODELETION. Lightburst (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He does not pass #1 of ANYBIO a unit award of the Congressional Gold Medal does not meet the criteria which is for an individual award. #2 is a highly debatable assertion, just being part of a group doesn't satisfy it so WP:BASIC is the relevant policy to look at. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know what guidelines apply, thanks. He doesn't meet any of them, be it ANYBIO or GNG. He didn't personally receive this award, the group of Tuskegee airmen received it, and it therefore doesn't meet #1. What widely recognised contribution did this individual pilot make? None I can see. The Tuskegee airmen as a group, plenty. But they have their own article because they are notable as a group. He isn't individually notable though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. We are WP:NOTPAPER and there is room for interpretation within our guidelines. This person did not run afoul of the law or get arrested - he did not go on a speaking tour. If he had we would have news articles to say he is notable. Instead, he made history breaking the color barrier and then he suffered from injuries related to his P-40 crash in Tuskegee. This person went home and in 1953 he died from complications related to his injuries from the crash. I met one of these heroes a few years ago at an aviation show (George Hardy). Back to the medal that is dismissed so loudly: as you know - one reason the medal was a collective award: it was approved in 2006 and conferred in 2007 - 64 years after the war when most were dead. But we do not need to focus on this prestigious medal, but we should focus on the "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record". Now I have been working on the article, and several others that are at Afd so I hope you can circle back before the close of this Afd. One day I hope we can create an article for every last one of these heroes. Lightburst (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's pure WP:ILIKEIT and INHERITED. Mztourist (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You just referred to two essays? How about guidelines and policies? Again you do not need to attack any keep ivote rationale. Other editors will show up and interpret the guidelines. I am using policies and guidelines to determine notability. FYI: this food fight takes away from actual editing. Lightburst (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irony much? You are criticizing Peacemaker67's delete !vote rationale, so you don't get to criticize me for questioning a keep !vote. Mztourist (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Second Lieutenant who did not serve in combat, no other particular distinctions. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG. A unit award of the Congressional Gold Medal does not confer individual notability. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The available references are often unreliable sources, user-submitted websites, or image galleries; the actual coverage is unsubstantial and WP:ROUTINE stuff like career promotions. Obviously, the award establishes the notability of the airmen as a group, not each of its 1000 members. Avilich (talk) 19:11, 28 September 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. Geschichte (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Cruz[edit]

Isabel Cruz (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:N Manabimasu (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Manabimasu (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She was a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. This old version of the article shows notability more clearly. I am not sure that the claim the old version was a copyvio was correct. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Eastmain. Mccapra (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:Prof on citations and more. No rationale for deletion given. A wp:trout for the nominator who should carry out WP:Before before making more nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong keep. I had this topic on the forefront of my to-create list after hearing yesterday by word of mouth that she had died, and had held off from doing it already only because I did not have any public source for her death. As a Fellow of the AAAS [32], Distinguished Professor [33], and well-cited researcher [34] she passes WP:PROF#C3, #C5, and #C1 at least. There is also some recent press for her research [35]. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Solid citation record with h-index of 37 (usually sufficient for NPROF#1, but depends on specific sub-field in CS). Passes NPROF#3 (FAAAS) and NPROF#5 (distinguished professor at UIC).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Solidly notable, with FAAAS and Distinguished Professorship [36]. PamD 10:06, 22 September 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 Trinity Southwest University#Archaeological investigations with limited merge of relevant material. The only sources offered in support of notability in the discussion failed to even mention Collins. The Nature article and others might support the notability of Collins' Sodom theory but they cannot be used to support notability of a biography whose subject is not mentioned SpinningSpark 23:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Collins (archaeologist)[edit]

Steven Collins (archaeologist) (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:PROF and likely a WP:SOAP violation. Yes, Christian apologists love his advocacy. Yes, there are groups who support him out of ideological preference (including Christianty Today and the Biblical Archaeology Society (fringe group). See WP:Walled garden and WP:FRIND. jps (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Additionally the subject, who is a creationist based at a dubious strip-mall "university," fails WP:GNG (i.e., he has received no notable, significant coverage from independent sources), many of the article's sources are of questionable reliability, and the article itself is clearly promotional. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I thought three of the sources (one from Christianity Today and two from Popular Archaeology) actually gave a pretty good neutral treatment of the subject of archaeological searches for Sodom, but that coverage is not about Steven Collins although he is mentioned. Otherwise, the article looks like a WP:REFBOMB, a lot of irrelevant sources to give the subject an appearance of notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He has done actual on site Archaeology work. Deleting over ones views on religion is bigotry. The page as been here for 6 years and edited by many. This is not a new page. Telecine Guy (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  And not a single one of those points are relevant to Wikipedia:Notability, which is what we are discussing here. Lots of people do "actual on site archaeology work" but that isn't a reason to have articles about them. An allegation that religion is the motivation for this discussion speaks volumes about your own bias, not anyone else's. Article duration and number of editors are also irrelevant factors in determining notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist I think that's overstating things. While I agree that it's not WP:N argument, I do concur that there is a clear bias in the nomination against perfectly respectable sources. The CT article is well balanced in its reporting, highlighting criticisms of Collins and his work and not giving an overly favorable impression (on the contrary I left feeling not impressed after reading their assessment). Likewise, the Biblical Archaeology Society is not a FRINGE group but is widely cited in academic research and is a respectable organization that has contributed a large body of important literature in its field. They have published literature by many highly respected and non-controversial leading scholars in archaeology over the last five decades. There's really nothing valid in the nominator's attack on the sources, and it's clear the nomination is prejudicial against scholarship or media connected with religion in a way that violates wikipedia's policies on neutrality.4meter4 (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Tall el-Hammam (and possibly small selective merge there, though the Sodom theory and Collins are already on that page), which is what the coverage is about (possible destruction by meteor and association with Sodom and Gomorrah), he is the director of excavations there. Collins is not close to passing NPROF as far as I can tell (note there are several other individuals with the same name who possibly do pass NPROF in other fields such as cancer research and computer science). Searching for "steven collins" archaeologist in google news brings up around 20 sources of varying reliability (some are reliable) discussing the Tall el-Hammam/meteor/Sodom connection, in which Collins is quoted, interviewed, or mentioned. What is lacking for standalone bio is coverage of Collins himself and Collins in a context other than Tall el-Hammam. --Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  While I think the Tall el-Hammam article is a better redirect target, I am not opposed to a redirect to Trinity Southwest University#Archaeological investigations if there is fear that a redirect to the site will cause disruption at that article. I would re-title the section at Trinity Southwest University to include the el-Hammam name since the university is not known for other archaeological investigations as far as I can tell.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am not a christian, I'm an atheist. I'm also a communist and not an American, but have y'all seen this article in the Nature from 2 days ago? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-97778-3 I think this alone kinda implies the guy is notable enough to be included in this encyclopedia. Therefore I am voting to keep this article. --Daikido (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's entirely about Tall el-Hammam and does not mention Collins in the prose, though it does cite several of his papers.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, it's not in Nature, but in Scientific Reports, a much dodgier journal from the same publisher. XOR'easter (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The guy seems like a first-class crackpot, and an expert on pseudoarchaeology. His outlandish ideas seem to be getting press attention. The article has potential for expansion. We have decent articles on similar charlatans, like Zecharia Sitchin and Ignatius L. Donnelly. I don't see the relevance of WP:PROF here, as his (rather phony) academic position is entirely unrelated to his press coverage. Dimadick (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I guess we should look to see what kind of sources would confer a WP:FRINGEBLP on this subject, then, if that's truly the case. jps (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• leaning redirect I have mixed feelings on this particular article: there is some argument for including him on the basis of notoriety, but OTOH he is pretty much entirely "notable" for the Tell El-Hammam excavations, so when all the resume padding is removed, there perhaps isn't anything that merits more than a link to the article on the site. That said, I'm concerned about the attitude towards various sources. Christianity Today, for example, is as reliable as anyone for straight reporting— better than MSM sources on a lot of religious issues because the quality of the latter tends to betray a great deal of ignorance. Indeed, what I can see of the cited CT article on the dig is not particularly positive and acknowledges the controversy. Mangoe (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tall el-Hammam not because of what he believes but simply because he fails WP:NPROF. --hroest 21:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, merge or redirect to Tall el-Hammam or to Trinity Southwest University#Archaeological investigations. My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He did publish several books, but it's hard to say how significant they were; I do not see significant non-trivial coverage about the person. My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect All coverage on him relates to Tall el-Hammam, which is fringe work rather than academic. Reywas92^Talk 03:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per User:Joe Roe, this should be a merge to Trinity Southwest University#Archaeological investigations. Reywas92^Talk 15:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge or redirect to Tall el-Hammam. I rather doubt that Collins is notable outside of fringe biblical inerrantist circles, but I'm not sure so I won't offer a !vote either way. But Tall el-Hammam is a real archaeological site that was excavated by real archaeologists before Collins got there. There is a provisional consensus on Talk:Tall el-Hammam (albeit not yet implemented) that we should minimise its reliance on Collins' pseudoarchaeological publications about the site in the interests of due weight. Merging this article there would mean further crowding out actual science about the site with biographical material on Collins. If we have to merge or redirect this somewhere, I think Trinity Southwest University#Archaeological investigations would be more appropriate. – Joe (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've been cleaning up the prose and improving the referencing. If this is deleted, I hope that work is used to improve content elsewhere. Most of the refs I've dealt with now have a free version available for review. Also, I wonder if NAUTHOR applies given the book Discovering the City of Sodom has a page of praise from various named sources, along with other favourable comments on the publisher's website (both linked in the article). 172.195.96.244 (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you but now the article relies even more heavily on non-independent sources (written by Collins or his direct team/students) and articles in unreliable, 'in-universe' publications like Bible and Spade. The sum total of independent coverage seems to be press about his outlandish claims about Tall el-Hammam. – Joe (talk) 08:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY [37] and the rubbish polemical of attempting to pigeonhole theists into WP:FRINGE rather than deal with notability absent such ad hominem attacks. GNG appears to be solidly met. Jclemens (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What on earth are you talking about? The man teaches biblical inerrancy and creationism at a strip mall. WP:FRINGE is definitely relevant. – Joe (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was going to say keep as he is a professor, then I r4elasied at some dodgy place that is not even a proper university.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tall el-Hammam. As the lead archaeologist of the sight for the vast majority of the archaeological work (only two very small surveys were done earlier; versus the large amount of excavation under his tenure since 2005) and the lead author of a respectable scholarly book published by Penn State University Press on that work he clearly deserves coverage in that article. Arguments that he should somehow be excluded are basically ignoring the fact that no other individual has contributed anywhere close to the amount of work at that site in terms of excavation and exploration than Collins, and he has published some respectable literature for that work in addition to his dubious theory on the whole Sodom thing. Ultimately, I don't think there is enough coverage on him to pass GNG and he clearly fails NACADEMIC. I would consider the controversy a WP:BLP1E issue, and as such all of this press doesn't meet our notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. I'm not seeing enough coverage of him or citations to his work for WP:GNG or WP:PROF#C1. The meteoric airburst theory got a lot of press recently, but he's not even one of the many coauthors on that, so it doesn't contribute to his notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect; hardly wiki-notable, "known" for only one thing and barely known for that. XOR'easter (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. There is very little coverage of him by third parties and not enough detail to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:PROF#C1. This article has improved so little since it was started in 2015, and then it did not meet notability guidelines. Qt.petrovich (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", Collins has published a number of books and articles which have made "a substantial impact outside academia". As for television, I don't know much about USA & UK, but in a small country like Denmark I can see, that the National Broadcast Station of Denmark at least 23 times have aired a program, where Collins tells about - well, whatever Collins tells about. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: first of all biblical archeological society is not crackpot it's literally a society of prestigious scholars you can visit their website and scholars who have written articles for them, read their articles https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/daily-life-and-practice/lachish-temple-sheds-new-light-on-canaanite-religion/ https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/review-my-nine-lives/ written by a distinguished professor of anthropology and cyber archeology who teaches at university of San Diego Steven Collins whatever you might think about him has published articles in reputed journals and recently exchanged articles with todd bolen. It should also be noted that this article also supports his view http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017LPICo1987.6001S/abstract

And recently https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-97778-3 this article was published in support of his theory

This article although the site is less popular quotes real academics https://scitechdaily.com/sodom-and-gomorrah-evidence-that-a-cosmic-impact-destroyed-a-biblical-city-in-the-jordan-valley/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.77.42.23 (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The IP editor directly above has made exactly two edits to Wikipedia, both to this discussion. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the editor a little above that, Qt.petrovich, made 'his' first edit 18 September 2021. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Oleryhlolsson. This account is new with just a dozen or so edits, but I am a long-time editor on WP. I was inactive for many years but am back now. Cheers! Qt.petrovich (talk) 13:51, 1 October 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 Bro'Sis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hila Bronstein[edit]

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

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

BLP with no references. Rathfelder (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Bro'Sis unless there is a massive improvement in sourcing. —Kusma (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bro'Sis. Not independently notable due to lack of RS.4meter4 (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sham marriage. Sandstein 07:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sham marriage in the United Kingdom[edit]

Sham marriage in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

We don't have articles on sham marriage in other countries and I don't see anything in this article that makes the situation in the UK look unusual enough to warrant a separate article from Sham marriage. The argument for the first AfD still holds, I think the Delete/Merge arguments were stronger and this article has not been greatly improved in the 2+ years since the last AfD. Finally, 2 of the 3 "Keep" votes (User:E.M.Gregory and User:A.Jacobin) in the first AfD were sockpuppets and so I'd like to see if there is sufficient support now to keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We could merge it into the main "sham marriage" article, or a brief subsection. Nothing too particular about this situation in the UK that warrants its own article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is having this article particularly different from having Green card marriage, the U.S. equivalent? BD2412 T 20:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with merge proposal above. --Bduke (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge useful material into Sham marriage and get rid of the rest. RomanSpa (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Merge - Merging seems like a sensible way forward that will allow relevant information to be kept on a single page that is probably more accessible. Dunarc (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge to sham marriage.4meter4 (talk) 21:20, 27 September 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. Sandstein 07:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Thoma (general)[edit]

Heinrich Thoma (general) (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 was nominated for deletion just over a year ago and closed as no consensus. Arguments for keeping at that time were mostly that Thoma satisfied WP:NSOLDIER criteria #1 and 2. NSOLDIER has since then been deprecated and is a mere essay. The relevant notability criteria are therefor now the any biography and general notability guidelines. The argument at the time that Thoma did not meet these criteria is still valid. Fellgiebel (1986), Scherzer (2007) and Von Seeman (1976) are abbreviated one-line listings and Keilig (1983) little more. Hartmann (2010) appears to have some passing mentions to Thoma in footnotes and abbreviated promotional records. Mitcham (2009) also merely lists Thoma's promotions with no attempt at context or tying Thoma to any events. Weber (2010) isn't about Thoma at all. No evidence of any signifcant coverage in reliable sources is apparent in the article or in searches, which fails both NBIO and GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He won the Iron Cross award thing and has several chapters in the books shown about him, seems semi-notable. I still am not sure if he's a notable general, but he's got a few things written about him. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost 5 million Iron Crosses were awarded in WWII and over 7,300 Knight's Crosses^[1]. Neither is significant and almost all the sources merely list his dates of promotion and award. None of the sources given can be called "several chapters". What's been written about him is almost entirely the bare details of his service history and most sources seem to be copying either the same primary source or each other. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While Hartmann mainly talks about Thoma in footnotes, these are not passing mentions. He discusses his views in quite some depth, and uses him to clarify the political position of Wehrmacht generals of the time, mainly in regard to his pronounced antisemitism and murder of partisans. The discussion by Hartmann certainly qualifies as "significant coverage"; as you pointed out, though, further sources are quite lacking indeed. However, Thoma also received "a well-known and significant award or honor" (although Eggishorn correctly pointed out the problem of said award in regards to notability) and was a relatively high-ranking general. IMO, there is enough about him to qualify for an entry. Applodion (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As a Knight's Cross recipient he would be considered notable per WP:ANYBIO. Jamesallain85 (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BASIC. The Knight's Cross (without embellishments) does not satisfy #1 of WP:ANYBIO. Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about the five secondary sourced books? Did you check out all of those too or take them into account? Obviously meets WP:GNG without a doubt. Jamesallain85 (talk) 09:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally I conducted a WP:BEFORE and looked at all the references that could be accessed online, they are mere listings with nothing that addresses the topic directly and in detail. As you know I don't share your views on what does or does not meet GNG. Mztourist (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, per WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Just in Hartmann's book alone he is listed 6 times in footnotes and the text, and is even quoted. The guy doesn't need a biography written about him to be notable. You like to arbitrarily applies notability guidelines, sounds like a clear case of WP:IDL, because the stack of secondary sources are there. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying the same thing as if we're all unfamiliar with it. I can't access Hartmann's book (and doubt that you've seen it either), but it would take more than a few footnotes in one book to convince me that BASIC is satisfied. If he was notable it shouldn't be difficult to find sources about him. Mztourist (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to access the book through archives.org, it does not require a subscription and is entirely free. You can choose make a free account which allows you to check out books like a library. I linked the book below in one of my comments. It is an excellent resource which even allows users to search the text of literally millions of books in a few seconds. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and as a divisional commander also meets WP:COMMONSENSE. One again, I am mystified by those who believe the best way to serve an encyclopaedia is to delete information on clearly notable people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, how many significant secondary sources does this guy need to be considered notable. I swear editors vote without even taking the articles own sources into account. He is listed in book after book, what standard are trying to hold here? Jamesallain85 (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by the existence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which is not the case here and not by the fact that someone held a particular rank. A great example of this I found recently is Esteban Hotesse, a non-notable Tuskegee Airmen 2nd Lt who achieved little before dying in a plane crash in 1945, but in 2015 The Atlantic did a story about him and that essentially made him notable, common sense tells me that he shouldn't have a page, but he has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Mztourist (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To many of us, notability is established by common sense, not rigid, unbending rules. They have no place on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it was WP:SOLDIER or a User's own criteria apparently...Mztourist (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is one thing I have discovered edited Wikipedia is there is a complete lack of common sense especially concerning AfDs. Someone please break down the sources listed and explain why he isn't notable. There are numerous independent published sources which attribute notability again and again. He was a divisional commander on the East Front for three years, he is listed in a stack of books independent on the matter and reliable, which are all secondary sourced. So please explain. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesallain85:, did you actually read the nomination? Because if you had, you'd have seen that I did exactly that. They are not WP:SIGCOV by any reasonable standard. Being listed again and again is worthless if its the same repeated scraps of information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I did, I just disagree with your assessment. Are you fluent in German? It would be difficult to assess many of these sources if you weren't in this case. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fluent but I submit for the eventual closer's evaluation that fluency is not required to see that two pages and a small handful of footnotes in a thousand page tome are not evidence of significant coverage. Neither is it necessary to recognize any of the other scraps that this article is sourced to. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly fluent in German and double checked my translation with a native speaker, I mentioned in another comment specifically that Hartmann p.267-268 discusses not only his role as 296th Division commander, but also his underestimation of Russian defences as a shortcoming. I think it speaks to notability as it is more than a passing mention. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were and are common sense in my opinion! WP:SOLDIER was blatantly common sense; its deprecation was a complete breach of common sense. I'm still mystified as to how that served Wikipedia and I always will be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well few other Users seem to share that view. Mztourist (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether one understands the reasoning or not, the discussion was well-attended and reached a community consensus. AfD is not the place to attempt overturning that consensus. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is the place where the discussion starts. Looking how notability is applied in cases such as this is a good argument for its return. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, or perhaps it is "repeating the same argument without convincing people". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the comments here, I'm really not sure that's true! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the many users baffled by the abolition of WP:SOLDIER. It could have possibly been tweaked, yes, but most of it was a very solid, commonsense notability guideline. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I am equally mystified by editors who claim "clear notability" based on mere position instead of actual sourcing. Claiming that an officer is notable because they were a division commander is exactly equivalent to claiming they are notable because they were a general - field grade officers did not command divisions. There were somewhere north of 600 German divisions in WWII and Hitler cycled through his general officers with abandon. That cannot be considered notable on its own by any reasonable standard. More importantly to the eventual closer, the community has recently clearly rejected the position that rank or awards or commands held grants "clear notability", as shown by the discussion linked in the nomination. Necrothesp having participated in that discussion should surely be aware of this community consensus. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My vote on Keep based upon Thoma being a division commander was *not* equivalent to claiming they were notable because they were a general. It is based on the different between 2 and 3 stars who *did not* command a substantial formation, a division, in combat, and those who did. Also, I would also vote Keep on colonels (who I am sure did command divisions in the Wehrmacht Heer on occasion, certainly did in the Red Army, and many elsewhere, any other view is over-British/American) who had substantial time or repeated time commanding a division in combat. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Necrothesp. Divisional commanders pretty notable; agree with the citing of WP:COMMONSENSE. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentAnyone critical of the secondary sourcing should look at Hartmann p.267-268. The text not only speaks about him being the 296th Division commander, but also his weaknesses that he made in command in underestimating the Russian defences, much more than a passing mention. Sources should not be rejected based on language per WP:NONENG Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Please provide a link, its odd that those pages aren't cited on the page if they're so detailed about him. Mztourist (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link, [[38]], the book linked is the most used resource, but I do find it interesting that the pages I found were not resourced, because I think they speak more to his notability than the pages listed in the article. Jamesallain85 (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the detail now in the article about his early life and WWII is more than enough for those aspects of his biography, and to fill out the WWII career aspects we know what divisions he served in, which indicate he was involved in the invasions of Poland, Low Countries/France and Barbarossa. There is plenty of information on the activities of the relevant divisions in those operations to add to the article, including in Hartmann re: Barbarossa (Hartmann bothered to examine his journal). We also have his promotions and dates of promotion, including in the interwar period, and there is information available about the makeup and activities of the two divisions and the military district he commanded in the latter stages of the war. The details of his Knight's Cross citation could also be added (although I accept a bare Knight's Cross does not meet WP:ANYBIO, it was far too common). I have no doubt that more books in German mention him, Google Books is a poor judge of that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree with Peacemaker67 MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. When originally reading the nominator's rationale I was expecting to see a poorly constructed article with little information and few sources. Imagine my surprise to find a well constructed article with multiple sources with substantial information cited with inline citations. I agree with others that a divisional commander involved in the invasions of Poland, Low Countries/France and Barbarossa is notable.4meter4 (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Peacemaker67. Mccapra (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Definitely notable for his war record and there can be little doubt that there is significant coverage in German sources. I entirely agree with Necrothesp and Jamesallain85 that WP:COMMONSENSE is needed here. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting at the Tower[edit]

Meeting at the Tower (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:NFILM criteria. ––FormalDude talk 02:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 02:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 02:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Why? The film is on imdb and elCinema — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masry684 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Masry684: None of those establish notability, as they are databases. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Two Citations are From Google books. Thanks

• Comment@Masry684: in a film article it’s important to have a “reception” section outlining what critics said about the film. You’ve added lots of references and I haven’t looked at them all, but are there any critical reviews of the film that discuss it in depth? If the refs just mention that this film exists, then it probably isn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks I didn’t know that we need critical articles for notability. But if the critical articles are negative will the film still be notable? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masry684 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Masry684: Yes, even if reviews are negative they'll still count towards WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the references seem to be significantly about this film. One of the JSTOR sources, for example, is a book review in Black Camera of a book that does not mention the film. The original author is advised to read the general and film notability guidelines more closely. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG and NFILM per Eggishorn.4meter4 (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:07, 28 September 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 Tucson, Cornelia and Gila Bend Railroad. Clear consensus not to retain standalone. As there is a plausible redirect target, redirecting as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Point, Arizona[edit]

Rocky Point, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Could not find any coverage of this place; older topos show a small rail siding on the Tucson, Cornelia and Gila Bend Railroad. Searches returned many false positives for Puerto Peñasco, a Mexican beach town which translates to Rocky Point and is popular with Arizona residents. –dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Clearly another rail siding that got mistakenly listed in GNIS. MB 17:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Per above, everything shows this as an isolated siding with no settlement in the area. Mangoe (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is why, when creating an article for an "unincorporated community", you need a map for reference; to actually verify the place exists as a community. You can't just blindly create articles from a number, you need to do research first. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above.4meter4 (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tucson, Cornelia and Gila Bend Railroad, of which it was a siding. Trustworthy people above have tried and failed to find sources for this; my own search is utterly confounded by the Mexican location, even when I specifically restrict results to Maricopa County. It's possible that there are sources somewhere we haven't found; in that case, someone ought to create an article and use them to write it. jp×g 07:40, 28 September 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. SpinningSpark 00:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shivraj Singh of Jodhpur[edit]

Shivraj Singh of Jodhpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Descendant of a Politician and erstwhile royal family of a princely state from British India. Fails WP:GNG; lacks WP:SIGCOV. Case of WP:BIOFAMILY defcon5 (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Famous polo player, and WP:GNG backs this up. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The article doesn't attribute notability as a polo player; not even mentioned in the lead. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite to mention polo career. Minkai (no talk page yet!) 13:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure to what extent, but this man is definitely an Indian celebrity. He was on the cover of a magazine called Society, where he was called "India's most eligible bachelor." (I was in Jodhpur for school/research in 2001, and met him multiple times.) He was also involved in a suspected murder, about which this film was made: https://www.journeyman.tv/film/1044

His family owns one of the most impressive structures in world architecture, the Mehranghar castle. Additionally, they own one of the two or three largest currently-inhabited palaces in the world. They more or less own the majority of the city of Jodhpur. To call this an "erstwhile" royal family is a funny joke. Ask any Rajasthani whether the letter of the 1970s democracy-laws passed in order to strip Indian royal dynasties of their power have very much to do with the reality on the ground in Marwar. They do not. And this man will be the next Majarajah (King) of Marwar. To call this subject irrelevant is to be ignorant of the facts, if not a subtle kind of Eurocentrism. Imagine marking the heir to the throne of Monaco or Norway for deletion.

• Keep As I'm an indian editor, he is really famous royal celebrity. He trained the Jodhpur polo team, which is now one of the best polo teams in the world. Shivraj is widely referred to as Indian polo's poster boy. Although I agree the article is not well-written and needs some big improvements, I think considering the news coverage of him (e.g [39], [40], [41], [42], the Prince of Hearts by Society Magazine, Most popular Royal faces of India by Yahoo! News, Hight profile marriage covered in BBC News and [43] featured on Hindu Newspaper (available offline), among others in Hindi language), he does pass WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. VocalIndia (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, after much-extended time for discussion. Notably, substantial additional material has been added to the article since the nomination, including references to independent sources, which tends to support the argument that the subject meets WP:ANYBIO. Several participants supporting retention of the article have still expressed WP:TOOSOON concerns. However, once the President of the United States has submitted a nomination for a federal post conferring presumed notability, only two outcomes can result: the subject is confirmed to the post, or the subject is not confirmed to the post; the withdrawal, rejection, or other circumstance leading to the non-confirmation of such a nominee is itself generally a newsworthy and noteworthy event, making an additional point of notability inevitable even if it is not via confirmation to the office. BD2412 T 05:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claire A. Pierangelo[edit]

Claire A. Pierangelo (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:BLP of a diplomat, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for diplomats. Ambassadors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because you can single-source their existence as ambassadors to primary source staff profiles self-published by their own employers -- the notability test for diplomats is passing WP:GNG on reliable source media coverage about their work in the role. But this is written as "she is an ambassador who exists, the end", and is sourced to a single press release from the White House rather than any evidence of media coverage to establish her significance. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:ANYBIO. Pierangelo is the recipient of the Meritorious Civilian Service Award and has been referenced in numerous reliable sources for her contributions to diplomacy prior to her nomination as U.S. Ambassador to Madagascar. It is unclear to me why this page is being singled out for deletion. KidAd • SPEAK 18:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep While I don't think WP should be a mirror of the US State department, the people representing the relationship between two governments are of importance to anyone interested in international relations. The only doubt I can think of is a WP:TOOSOON, but she'll eventually be instated and there can only be more RSs. I'd only consider a deletion if she never took the post or left after a short period for non-controversial reasons. Estheim (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. U.S. ambassadors generally get enough coverage to pass GNG once in office.4meter4 (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Merge with the draft that already exists at Draft:Claire A. Pierangelo. Although this article clearly has more citations. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - currently a case of WP:TOOSOON, but I do not see the benefit of deleting it now and then probably re-recrating it in a few months when she is confirmed as ambassador. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:01, 2 October 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. I have to discount opinions that are basically only attacks on those who are of a different view, such as the opinion by Folengo; see WP:NPA. Sandstein 07:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest-living United States senators[edit]

List of longest-living United States senators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Similar to the recently deleted List of oldest living United States governors (discussion).

The first section of the list is a very confusing table of historical holders of the record for "longest-lived former senator," a title that appears to have been invented by some Wikipedia editors. The start and end dates list the time period during which the person was the record holder. This topic appears to be a completely original invention, and is certainly non-notable.

The second section of the list ranks former senators who actually are living by their age.There's no evidence that this ranking is notable, and it has no bearing on their job since they're mostly retired. It's a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization of office holders and longevity.

I am also nominating the following related page:

List of the oldest living members of the United States House of Representatives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) pburka (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest living members of the Lok Sabha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) pburka (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest living members of the Rajya Sabha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) pburka (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, similar case to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_the_oldest_living_Major_League_Baseball_players, trivial information with arbitrary and nonsensical criteria. Dronebogus (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've added two more similar lists of Indian politicians to this nomination. pburka (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as fails WP:LISTN and is WP:TRIVIA. There are some sources approaching discussing this for US senators but I do not thinks these are reliable nor provide WP:GNG. There are established terms for this kind of thing like Father of the House but the categories nominated are not a thing that reliable sources discuss. More examples of LISTCRUFT. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how this fails the trivia rule. The article specifically says, "However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." This list seems selective and has a narrow theme. I don't see a proposal for another, better way to present this information.
• Keep: STOP DELETING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5FB0:5B90:EC44:551A:B198:6FF5 (talk • contribs)
• Delete: clearly a case a of cross categorisation. Fails WP:LISTN defcon5 (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These list has been maintained for many years from readily available information by people who obviously care about this information being included and that alone should prove "there's a market for it". Whether or not it is here should not be up to those who don't care. 96.250.80.27 (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn’t how it works. We aren’t trying to sell a product here; popularity is irrelevant. Dronebogus (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:INTERESTING is not considered a valid argument in AFD. 2601:241:300:B610:F1BA:AEF9:9050:8993 (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP: Stop trying to delete all of these perfectly fine pages. This is annoying! See the delete discussion about the oldest living president for more info. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_age — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:484:c580:3420:5cb4:9158:86e2:784d (talk) 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Given that there have been thousands of congressmen, but less than 50 presidents, comparing a list of longevity for each seems like false equivalence.2601:241:300:B610:74AB:87B7:9FD8:AA37 (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the American system, the US Congress is equally as important as the US president. The linked discussion already addressed many concerns brought up here, so I don't see a problem with including it.
      • Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF is considered an argument to avoid in these discussions.2601:241:300:B610:196B:664B:339B:F670 (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a direct quote from your link: "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates."
  • The specific criteria concerning that argument is Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF, which is not considered a valid argument.2601:241:300:B610:F1BA:AEF9:9050:8993 (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There's no evidence that "oldest living person who happened to have been a member of the national legislature at some point during their lives" is a notable distinction backed up by reliable sources.2601:241:300:B610:74AB:87B7:9FD8:AA37 (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a source from about 10 years ago with similar information to the US Senate article. https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11850515
  • This article talks about the seven oldest living US Senators. https://newjerseyglobe.com/campaigns/the-time-a-staffer-leapfrogged-his-boss-to-a-u-s-senate-seat/
  • This article talks about Lester L. Wolff, who was until recently the oldest living US Representative. It specifically mentions that fact in the article. The author writes, "Born in 1919, Mr. Wolff was the oldest living former member of the House of Representatives." https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/12/us/lester-l-wolff-influential-former-congressman-dies-at-102.html
    • The first article seems to be a Wikipedia mirror. The rest of the sources could potentially be added to the article if reliable, as the senate article currently lacks sources. Though many items would still be unsourced, primarily with regards to the older entries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.71.249.251 (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The birthdates of all members of both Houses are routinely published by official sources,e.g. https://bioguide.congress.gov and that a given date is before or after another date should never need a "source".96.250.80.27 (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The birthdates may be sourced, but the dates in which they became were the oldest are not. For example, Elihu Root being born on February 15, 1845 may be sourced, but is him becoming the oldest senator on April 12, 1933 sourced? 2601:241:300:B610:F1BA:AEF9:9050:8993 (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that just be the incumbent oldest living senator's death date in almost all cases????

That would seem to be Wikipedia:SYNTH, which is discouraged on the site. Specifically the policy says "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." 2601:241:300:B610:F1BA:AEF9:9050:8993 (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not synthesis; the sources for these death dates exist on the pages of the various US Representatives and US Senators. See Wikipedia:Calculations

The birth death dates may be sourced, but the order of who was the oldest amongst the then living current and former senators is something that only apparent by determining who was alive on each day and how old they were, which is more than what the sources indicate with birth and death dates. 2601:241:300:B610:196B:664B:339B:F670 (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, those are still calculations. I don't see any rule saying there can only be a limited number of calculations included on a page?????? From Wikipedia:Calculations "calculating a person's age is almost always permissible."

The issue is ultimately whether or nor who is "the longest-living United States senators among those currently living (incumbent or former) and a list of the individuals who, at the time of their deaths, were the longest-living United States senators among those current or former senators then living" is ultimately a notable topic. As the dicssuic shows, people have differing opinions on the matter, so it will ultimately be up to the closer to decide.2601:241:300:B610:196B:664B:339B:F670 (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what other arcane rules you are referring to; I honestly don't care. I just want to stop this useful page from being deleted. I have tried to address the others' complaints as well as possible even when the complaints seemed silly or minor to me. I just think there should be a strong bias against deleting pages that provide useful information and have analogues.

Wikipedia:ITSUSEFUL is not considered a valid argument in AFD discussions.2601:241:300:B610:196B:664B:339B:F670 (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I literally was just explaining that I don't want the page deleted. I'm not trying to violate your rules (although they do seem arbitrary).

They aren't my rules, they're the rules of the wiki. Since we both have strong opinions on the matter, I'll leave the issue be and let others decide what should be done.2601:241:300:B610:196B:664B:339B:F670 (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(So where does one go to overturn these obtuse rules before more good articles are sacrificed at their Satanic altar? 96.250.80.27 (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Fritz Hollings's website explicitly mentions that he was the oldest living US Senator in 2019. The author writes, "The senator, who currently is the nation’s oldest living former United State Senator, has a long legacy of accomplishments that helped South Carolina and the nation." https://fritzhollings.com/2019/01/01/happy-birthday-senator-hollings/
  • This article mentions right away that Strom Thurmond was the oldest living US Senator in 1996. The author writes, "The oldest living United States Senator opens the session of the world's greatest deliberative body with two raps of his white gavel. "The Senate is now in session," twangs Strom Thurmond, the president pror everybody, a "How'ya doin'" here, a "Mighty glad to see ya" there, a pat on the back, a firm grip on the upper arm." https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1996-03-04-1996064043-story.html
    • That article refers to him being the oldest serving senator, not the oldest living senator among both the then current and former senators. At the time the article was published, former senator Jennings Randolph, who was a few months older, was still alive.2601:241:300:B610:F1BA:AEF9:9050:8993 (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• One of the complaints is "Similar to the recently deleted List of oldest living United States governors (discussion)." However, as others such as 2601:241:300:B610:196B:664B:339B:F670 (talk) have pointed out, "Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF is considered an argument to avoid in these discussions." There needs to be a stronger reason to delete this than other stuff got deleted. Otherwise, there should be a bias toward keeping these pages. The complaint about the first section of the list is that it is "confusing" because it lists chronologically the "longest-lived former senator". The deleter alleges that the topic is "a completely original invention" and "certainly non-notable". However, several sources have been found and linked mentioning this title. Finally, the complaint about the second section of the list is that "it has no bearing on their job since they're mostly retired." I think this table could be shortened to maybe the 10 oldest living US Senators and included in this article. If it is not going to be included on this article, I would suggest including it in the Oldest people article in a similar format to the oldest man and oldest woman (one table for oldest all-time and another for oldest currently living).
• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTSTATS. This is simply a trivial case study of "age at death" based on a specific set ("members of the US senate"/some other legislative bodies) which certainly has nothing to do with it. There might be a case for listing the oldest living senators somewhere, but that does not justify a list of the rest, which is indeed a completely original invention which fails WP:LISTN. The comparison with similar articles is actually warranted, since this all are based on the same idea, and so unless it can be shown that some exceptionally do meet the criteria, there's no reason to not delete them. I'll also note that many of the keep arguments are entirely unfounded, some of them are just "stop trying to delete these" without anything else whatsoever... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See this deletion discussion where your concerns are addressed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_age
• Strong delete per NLIST. Once they're out of office, nobody keeps track of how long they live: the two distinctions really have no connection. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because YOU don't keep track of the ages of former US Senators does not mean others do not keep track. In fact, several sources above have been found to keep track of former US Senators' ages and who the oldest US Senator or US Representative is.
• Delete per nom. Consensus at AFD recently has overwhelmingly supported not utilizing lists of "oldest living..."; largely because such lists are constantly changing as people age and die and maintaining accuracy and verifiability is a difficult and on-going task. Many editors consider such lists not encyclopedic (because they are inherently unstable) and in contradiction to policy at WP:LISTN. I share that view which I consider now to be the standard modus operandi/precedent at AFD within the application of NLIST in these type of list discussions.4meter4 (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of oldest people is constantly changing, yet the alleged difficulty of accuracy and verification is explained on the page. That would be a better option here as opposed to throwing up our hands and saying "just delete it". Just because a list is incomplete or can never be fully completed does not preclude a shortened or selective list on the same topic.
  • See this deletion discussion at US Presidents where the consensus was IN FAVOR of KEEPING an oldest living US Presidents list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_age
  • See also Wikipedia:NPOSSIBLE
• Delete Per the nom. The lists fail WP:NLIST due to being random cross-sections of career, age, and being alive. Wikipedia is also neither a WP:DIRECTORY nor a home for WP:TRIVA about the bygone careers of former public officials, and the articles contain a great deal of or are entirely WP:OR (ex. "Oldest senators (historic)"; the entire "List of oldest living members of the Rajya Sabha"). Newshunter12 (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe this violates Wikipedia:Trivia because, as the link states, "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information". This is clearly the latter, a selectively populated list with a narrow theme.
• Keep. Good to see you're going after the real villains. There's the work of thousands behind these lists and they are being unrespectfully deleted for dubious thick-headed interpretation of "policies". Obviously this worsens the quality and usefulness of Wikipedia, but who cares until there are "policies". Bureaucrats destroy everything they find. Good day. --Folengo (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for all four, echoing Folengo and others. Tintin 11:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All - Already mentioned several times above, this is just a cross categorization that provides no sources showing why these specific groupings passes WP:LISTN. Stating that one or two of the individuals on the list have a source stating that they, specifically, were one of the oldest living senators/etc. at the time does not justify these entire lists which, without sources discussing their status as the "longest-living X", is just WP:SYNTH. None of the keep votes above have addressed any of these concerns, instead relying on WP:ITSIMPORTANT arguments. Rorshacma (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Wikipedia:NPOSSIBLE, articles should be considered based on whether the sources can exist, not on whether the current article links to extant sources. Additionally, some sources have been collected above, proving that sourcing for this article's topic DOES exist.
  • Additionally, your link Wikipedia:Synthesis mentions that routine calculations such as the difference between a birth date and present or a birth date and a death date are entirely permissible and NOT reasons for deletion.
    • Again, some sources on the ages of a couple of the individual people on this list, which is all the sources above do, does not satisfy WP:LISTN for this topic, because none of them discuss this specific cross categorization specially as a group or set. And while calculating their ages based on their birth dates may not be WP:SYNTH, compiling that into a list article where there are no sources that actually discuss that data as the topic of "List of longest living X" is. Rorshacma (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this list aids navigation and provides information meeting our list WP:LISTCRITERIA. It is not indiscriminate. I know this should not matter, but I could not resist checking views... 6,597 in July, 5,600 views in August and 8,544 so far this month. We should serve our readers. Lightburst (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you elaborate on how it aids navigation? pburka (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said Keep all my rationale is pretty clear. Lightburst (talk) 00:10, 29 September 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 14:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Medabots characters[edit]

List of Medabots characters (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 is unambiguously cruft. A very long list with exactly four refs to archives of what I'm guessing are a fan site. The two main characters are already listed on the main article. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There's nothing showing this satisfies either WP:GNG or WP:LISTN. Medabots#Characters should be suffiecent to give an overview. I don't see any benefit to merging because there's no relevant sourced content. Starting from scratch seems like the best idea. TTN (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and TTN.4meter4 (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Per WP:SNOWBALL. (non-admin closure) REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Darbaki[edit]

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

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

Following a discussion at WT:FOOTY, I'm listing this for deletion for likely failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Article is a likely autobiography by a user that also repeatedly created Karim Darbaki, Mounir Darbaki and also Hafid Darbaki.

The claims that he played for Morocco and for the likes of Sporting CP are not supported by any reliable sources. He is mentioned in passing in MN Soccer Hub and there are some news stories that feature bits of info about him like Eater but the coverage lacks depth. We know that he coached some school and college soccer teams in the US but it's not clear why he warrants an encyclopaedia article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete playing career, including international appearances for Morocco, look to be fabricated- if true and sourceable, then he may be notable enough, but sources don't seem to exist. No evidence they pass WP:GNG passed on the actual sourced information, which is that he has been a US high school soccer coach. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I saw no indication that this person passes any form of GNG standards. Fabricated fake information?? Govvy (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom unless sources are found.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing verifiable, would not be surprised if this was a hoax. Fails GNG. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – the playing career appears to be mostly fake (he isn't on the Chicago Power roster in either season, for example). His coaching career is completely verifiable (see his LinkedIn profile, Minnesota TwinStars FC here and a passing mention here), but not enough to meet FOOTY guidelines, and there isn't enough coverage to meet GNG. I found this article at Al Bayane but not much more that's directly about him. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Clog Wolf _Howl 16:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Could well be a hoax. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most certainly has not played for Sporting CP and nothing else to suggest that he would pass GNG or NFOOTY. Probably could be CSD'ed as a hoax as well. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article itself talks about how everything he claimed was bullshit lolMuur (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above and recommend that closing admin send to WP:HOAXLIST as this article has been active since 2008. wizzito | say hello! 22:58, 22 September 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 07:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjog Rai[edit]

Sanjog Rai (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 indication of importance. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. Clog Wolf _Howl 11:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Clog Wolf _Howl 11:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. I am not sure Nepali Times and Kathmandu Post are talking about the same person. Kathmandu Post source is behind paywall. Nothing else on the internet, in Nepali or English, which is unexpected for a notable person, even one from Nepal. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Additionally, the article contradicts the sources which highlight his work more in portraiture of clothed women as opposed to nude art.4meter4 (talk) 23:14, 27 September 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) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Levko Revutsky award[edit]

Levko Revutsky award (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 Fails WP:SIGCOV. No source cited Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true. At least 2 sources are cited. A1 (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added several footnotes from newspapers and a book reference. The latter contains the biography of Levko Revutsky as well. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. Dr.KBAHT's additions appear to pass GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Editors can go ahead with a merger if they are confident of the sources, or else renominate the article for deletion. Sandstein 11:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pistol model 2000[edit]

Pistol model 2000 (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, searching the name just brings up Wikipedia mirrors, I'm unable to even find a passing mention by any secondary sources. Loafiewa (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Loafiewa (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article could be merged into IWI Jericho 941, but that would confuse people looking for the Romanian gun. I found some references and added them, but they may not be good enough. Perhaps someone more familiar with military sidearms and the media that cover them than I am could find some better references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could see the case for merging, but I'm unable to find a source that verifies the article's claim that the Model 2000 is a copy of the Jericho (aside from a self-published Wordpress site). Loafiewa (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to this news story, Cugir Arms Factory obtained the patent for producing a copy of the Jericho pistol in 1995 (which is ro:Pistol Md. 1995). The ro:Pistol Md. 2000 is a newer version made at the end of the 2000's. In 2021 another version named LP 5 was produced, which corresponds to NATO standards. Razvan Socol (talk) 18:05, 7 September 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.