< December 02	December 04 >

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Nunes[edit]

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

Artur Nunes

This article is still not ready for article space. It is very incomplete, as evidenced by the multiple empty sections. It makes no mention of significant coverage that would support general notability or musical notability. This article should be in draft space until the sections are expanded to make it ready for article space, but it has already been in draft space once, and so cannot be unilaterally draftified again. I mistakenly tagged it for BLPPROD, but he is not a living person. Either expand the article within seven days for a Heymann close, or move it to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Angola. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft back to draft this goes, there's an incomplete article waiting to be finished here. What's given is basically a small biography, not suitable for wikipedia at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Undecided on whether the article should be improved now or sent back to the draft system. Regardless, I think Nunes is probably eligible for a WP article because via a Google Books search, he appears frequently in books on African music and more specific works of Angolan history. The same is true of the FAPLA-Povo Alliance that is mentioned in the lead. However, Nunes appears to be one of many musicians that were popular during the period, and there is no support for this article's gushy platitudes like "one of the most influential voices" and "an icon to always be remembered and never forgotten". Clean up that junk regardless. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 03:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has been significantly improved since the nomination and meets GNG with sources such as Intonations: A Social History of Music and Nation in Luanda, Angola, from 1945 to Recent Times (6) and this (3). However, the tone of the article certainly needs improvement. S0091 (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article not what it was when nominated for deletion. Garuda3 (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given the above discussion and sources that have been located, Nunes is eligible for an article here and satisfies notability rules. The article has also been cleaned up and expanded since the nomination, though it appears to be a real struggle to keep the primary author from plastering it with unsubtle hero worship. The article's tone might be a problem going forward, but Nunes himself is notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boquillas, Arizona[edit]

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

Evidently a rail spot, judging by its location next to an abandoned SP line. Another searching nightmare due to the Big Boquillas Ranch at the other side of the state, and the Little Boquillas Ranch about five miles SW of this point, but ghosttowns.com admits "Not listed anywhere as being a ghost town. Since it is located so near to abandoned railroad tracks, it must have served the railroad." Not seeing notability here. Mangoe (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any indication of notability after searching --Tristario (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably just a rail stop that served the LBR. Not notable. MB 17:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd like to hear from page creator User:Onel5969 who usually is quite active in these discussions, but whose opinion we have not heard so far. It appears to be an old railway stop (IMHO in Cochise County this likely means an ore stop, not necessarily any permanent settlement or farm community) but I'm sensitive to keeping any pages which may improve our gazetteer coverage. Common practice in formerly populated places is to keep, but not with the sources I'm seeing so far. BusterD (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after a discussion participant calls for comment from the article creator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporation (Netherlands)[edit]

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

This article is a 2021 WP:REDUNDANTFORK or at best an unnecessary and premature WP:SPINOFF of Kingdom of Holland. Our Kingdom of Holland article needs more content, not less, because of the general tendency to frontload content into the country and general history articles. The detailed history articles, such as Kingdom of Holland, end up much too short. Less importantly, but maybe related, the article speaks of the incorporation of the Netherlands (initially even "The" Netherlands that Enwiki does not use), while the name Holland was used during this period. The Incorporation of the "Netherlands" and "Kingdom of Holland" articles largely overlap and rehash each other. Suggesting a merge to Kingdom of Holland of usable content and a redirect. gidonb (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC) Withdrawn gidonb (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, in Dutch Historiography the Incorporation is a different historical period, apart from the Kingdom of Holland. So, this article has in that way it's own right of existence next to the Kingdom. It's like putting Allied-occoupied Germany in the article of Nazi Germany. I understand the argument for a merge in the article about the Kingdom of Holland because of it's short length, but I'm willing to help expand the article about the Kingdom. I got loads of information for that article, so that wouldn't be a problem. In that way both articles can coexist. Mathijsloo (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, France, and Netherlands. gidonb (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison is a misleading frame. The articles rehash each other and no two articles are needed at present. On the positive side, the offer to expand the Kingdom of Holland article is much appreciated! In anticipation of serious and much-needed improvements and expansions in the 18th-19th century history of the Netherlands (for a while officially Holland), I will withdraw this nomination. It would NOT be right to keep an article hostage for this purpose! (I hate it when people do this) gidonb (talk) 11:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Children's and Family Emmy Awards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Children's and Family Emmy Award for Outstanding Preschool Animated Series[edit]

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

Single award category doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - sources don't support that the specific category it is separately notable to the overall ceremony. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Awards, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I don't think deletion would be good in this case, as (if this version of the Emmys continues) it would be nice to have a reversion to expand upon once it (probably) becomes notable. However, it's too new of an award show, right now. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, this article is about a single category within the Children's and Family Emmy Awards. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. But most major awards programs have individual pages for categories, so it wouldn't be too unprecedented. But this is too new of a program as a whole. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if anything exists to merge, otherwise redirect. There simply isn't enough separate info on this forthcoming award category to justify a standalone article. Also, Children's and Family Emmy Award for Outstanding Animated Series should likely meet the same fate. Jclemens (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Children's and Family Emmy Awards for now; the award will probably be notable in future years, but now is just too soon since it duplicates information from 1st Children's and Family Emmy Awards. I agree with Jclemens that Children's and Family Emmy Award for Outstanding Animated Series should be treated similarly, as well as Children's and Family Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Performance. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep by consensus that the wiki-notability standard for authors is met. XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Emily Hauser[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. None of the cited sources are independent of the subject, and I can find no independent sources which count towards WP:GNG; nor do I think she meets WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Women. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR#3 - I have added multiple reviews for multiple works. Beccaynr (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr I don't quite see a keep there - Reading Poetry is an edited collection, so only For the Most Beautiful is useful for WP:NAUTHOR. -- asilvering (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be reviews of her two other novels, as well. To me, at least, "multiple reviews for multiple works" doesn't mean that every work has to have multiple reviews – four reviews of one book and one each of two more is still multiple both in the number of reviews and in the number of books reviewed. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi asilvering, there appears to be no exception in WP:CREATIVE that removes the editor of an edited collection from "a major role in co-creating", because the work is more than 'copyediting.' There is a reason editors are included in citations and on the covers of edited works, and in this instance, while it could be cited more clearly in the article, she also wrote a chapter of the book. Beccaynr (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To me the rationale for giving these less weight is not about how creative the contribution is, but the depth of coverage in sources. A review of an edited volume is more likely to devote most of its attention to the individual pieces in the collection than in the work of fitting them together. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For this volume, that she also contributed to, there is coverage of how the pieces were fit together, e.g. Reading Poetry, Writing Genre: English Poetry and Literary Criticism in Dialogue with Classical Scholarship, edited by Silvio Bär and Emily Hauser (Translation and Literature, 2019), commentary on the collection as a whole, e.g. Reading Poetry, Writing Genre. English Poetry and Literary Criticism in Dialogue with Classical Scholarship ed. by Silvio Bär and Emily Hauser (review) (Classical Journal, 2022), and the key concepts identified by the editors, e.g. Reading Poetry, Writing Genre: English Poetry and Literary Criticism in Dialogue with Classical Scholarship. Bloomsbury studies in classical reception (Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2019), which seems to help support the notability of her major role in co-creating this work as an editor. Beccaynr (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we have enough reviews for WP:AUTHOR even omitting the edited volume. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable as novelist, enough RS reviews. PamD 09:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - primarily notable under WP:AUTHOR as a novelist (see now the multiple reviews of her fiction added to the article), and as a public Classicist. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the reviews have added weight for her inclusion Lajmmoore (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject is notable and that is established on the pageSrsval (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 15:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The It Girl (novel series)[edit]

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

Unremarkable book series with all but the second sentence OR. JJLiu112 (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. JJLiu112 (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "The It girl" is such a common phrase, finding hits is hard, even when adding "Ziegesar" to the search string, I'm mostly getting Listicles and Gossip Girl tie-in coverage. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep citations added.--Pallet182 (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources merely confirm it is a book. Wowee. Does not address satisfy WP:BKCRIT for 2+ examples coverage. Why does it matter? JJLiu112 (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JJLiu112 The New York Magazine added to the article already is reliable and it's an in-depth coverage of the entire series so we are halfway there. Here's a master thesis about the series. Here's an academic article. It's a keep. However, I think some of the articles about individual books in the series can be boldly redirected here, consider for example unreferneced plot summary at Devious (novel). That would be a productive cleanup. PS. I checked and all books in the series are just a plot summary, with only first one having an extra note about the cover. I recommend boldly redirecting all books in that series to the article about said series (note I prodded one for now). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment above, sources exist to show this meets GNG/NBOOK, article has been somewhat improved (more sources I found should be added, as well as reception section). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Literature. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand based on sources found. There is significant coverage if you count the whole series. Archrogue (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources mentioned by Piotr support that WP:NBOOK is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as most of the added sources support WP:NBOOK although I've added a self-published tag to the Goodreads ref as per WP:GOODREADS. Suonii180 (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Saint-Constant, Quebec. Star Mississippi 18:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solime Cardinal[edit]

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

Biography of a smalltown mayor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not automatically notable just because they existed as mayors, and have to be shown to have significant press coverage with which to write substantive content about the impact of their mayoralty (specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects they had on the development of the town, etc.) -- but apart from existing as a mayor, the only notability claim being attempted here is that he was an ancestor of other people, and the only sources are Find-a-Grave and a genealogy. Notability is not inherited, however, so he isn't notable just because he happened to have notable descendants, and genealogical databases aren't WP:GNG-building sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment The text of the article is already sitting in Saint-Constant, Quebec. Would it be weird to redirect there? Joyous! | Talk 17:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saint-Constant, Quebec. That's not weird at all! Nfitz (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Joyous!, doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Suonii180 (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 18:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Brands[edit]

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

Despite a dozen references, there is no indication of notability. Source #1 is what appears to be a profile written by the company. #2 is a stock exchange listing. #3 is a brief database "profile", again likely written by the company itself, as for #4. #5 through #12 are just links to sites selling the company's products. None of these appear to be substantially reliable or independent, and a search for anything better comes up empty. Aside from the rather promotional aspect, there is no indication that the company passes either the general notability guideline or the corporate notability guideline. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete company was sold to another one recently, routine business mentions in the press. Nothing we can use for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine business coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 20:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Oaktree. Cabrils (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Okash[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a person, not properly referenced as passing any Wikipedia occupational WP:SNG. The notability claim here essentially boils down to the fact that he and his work exist, and the referencing is entirely to primary sourcing that isn't support for notability at all, namely "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations or companies that he's directly affiliated with, rather than any evidence of WP:GNG third-party coverage or analysis about his work. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Somalia. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, there's this at Radio Ergo [1] and that's about it. Not at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy Championship Wrestling[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article was deleted in 2009. Since then, doesn't look like it's notable. Article not updated since 2016, notability questioned since 2017. Most sources are just WP:ROUTINE, no in deep coverage of the promotion (most of them, Cagematch which is like IMDB) the other are festivals where the promotion hosted some events. No independent coverage. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also including ACW American Joshi Championship. If the article is deleted, no point to keep a title.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't see anything that wasn't WP:ROUTINE. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is typical of a promotion for the business. It is routine coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 12:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to WP:PROMOTION. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Star Mississippi 19:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Munro Middle School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG and NSCHOOl. On the Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable, it states that a elementary school needs to be notable, or have a notable event to stay or become a article. This one is clearly not notable, its just a regular public elementary school. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 18:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 18:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went here.....had no clue there was an article. Only way it's here is because Tom went there (for only a year).... other than that I agree it's not notable. Moxy- 18:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board per ATD and the longstanding practice outlined at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 174.212.212.143 (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Patel (businessman)[edit]

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

Being founder of non notable organization doesn't passes WP:GNG. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage all seems routine. Nothing notable that I see, all routine business announcements. Oaktree b (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Man doing his job. No discernable features that make him notable. Chancer, UPE. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 08:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another yacht guy who made some tech money in the aughts. Sources feel like puff pieces where rich folks high-five each other. Nothing in the way of notable achievements, adversity, philanthropy etc. Jasap (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ROTM businessman, fails WP:GNG. 2604:3D09:167E:BF00:A1B7:197E:E0A8:9E81 (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources prove notability. As Jasap stated above, the sources appear to consist mostly of puffery and don't contain information on what makes him notable. Nythar (💬-❄️) 01:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting Goods Industry Hall of Fame[edit]

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

Industry award doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Awards, Products, and Sports. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be enough non-routine coverage from secondary sources in the article already. While most of the coverage is from primary sources, this can serve as supplemental to the independent coverage which is enough for a GNG pass. Frank Anchor 05:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armita Abbasi[edit]

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

Being kidnapped by Government doesn't meets WP:GNG. No coverage can found beyond that single event. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in any way, shape, or form. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user is banned now. Ladsgroup^overleg 17:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, e.g. significant international coverage in How Iran's security forces use rape to quell protests (CNN, Nov. 21, 2022), Sexuelle Gewalt unter dem Mullah-Regime (Taz, Nov. 25, 2022), (and not WP:BLP1E due to the significance), Iran anti-hijab activist missing for 10 days, family fear ‘abduction, rape, torture’ by authorities (FirstPost, Oct. 31, 2022). Beccaynr (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep I am agree with Beccaynr. Also just add new references. 1, 2, 3, 4~~ Photo Eminency (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Sock strike. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Keep Her kidnapping by the Islamic republic forces has major coverage among media such as BBC and CNN and she became a symbol of Iranian protests. Darafsh (Talk) 20:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ongoing significant media coverage of this specific individual victim as well as the ongoing protests in her name while the list of other victims grows longer. It started with Armita who will effectively become the martyr for change. I would think an uprising such as we're seeing bring their oppressors to their knees is a heckuva notable person and event. Jasap (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep maybe being kidnapped is not enough to be notable, but the media coverage of the kidnapping does make the article a notable kidnapping. NMasiha (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has sources in German, Italian, English, Persian, Bengali, Chinese, Slovenian, French, and Spanish. From all sorts of reliable sources across the globe. How on earth that doesn't satisfy GNG Ladsgroup^overleg 14:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: exactly what Ladsgroup said. This is a GNG article whichever way you look at it. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Food safety#Regulations by jurisdiction and agency. Clear consensus to redirect, but the ideal target isn't quite as clear. The Food safety article was the most mentioned; if there is disagreement about this, it can be worked out through normal editor discussion or at WP:RFD. RL0919 (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scores on the doors[edit]

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

Currently this is based only on primary sources from government websites, and may be WP:SYNTH. I can find attestation to the term, e.g. [2], but otherwise WP:GNG is questionable. Created by a COI SPA who repeatedly shoehorned a commercial website into the article text; see also Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Scores_on_the_doors. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Health and fitness, and Law. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It is definitely getting some independent coverage though none of it seems to be in top tier publications. For example:

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/scores-doors-rating-scheme-aims-7744837

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/21169044.scores-doors-latest-food-hygiene-results-oxfordshire/

https://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/23056831.five-star-rating-farm-shop-food-hygiene-rating/

Chagropango (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to food hygiene article. This is basically displaying results of public health inspections in a window. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to food safety. Explanation of the food hygiene ratings schemes should be placed in the appropriate country's section of that article. Rupples (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content and redirect into Restaurant rating#Sanitation, where that section could use much more fill-in than just Amerocentrism. Nate • (chatter) 23:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Food safety#Regulations by jurisdiction and agency. The article's subject is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Firby, Hambleton. Star Mississippi 15:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firby (surname)[edit]

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

Little here about the surname, mostly about places and non-notable people. Wire723 (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has never been about the surname. Right back to the beginning it has been a repository for unsourced and insanely detailed trivia about a hamlet in North Yorkshire. I lived nearby from 1989 until 1996 and my mum still lives within a long hike from it... and I've never heard of it. But that's by-the-by. If the material was sourced, then I'd say merge it into Firby, Hambleton. But it really isn't sourced: there's a lot of semi-related links scattered through the article, but few of them are actually sourcing the statements they appear to be supporting. So I'm not going to argue for what is basically cruft to be merged into the article. Instead, to hell with it: unencyclopedic, badly sourced, more of a fan project than anything else. It can go. — Trey Maturin has spoken 18:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Firby, Hambleton. The information and sources in that article can be merged to the actual town. Isn't a surname at all.
Keep I have removed all the other content and added sourced information about the surname. Per WP:NNAME though there isn't anyone currently with an article the article is sourced at James Firby may be notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Trey Maturin. The original version of the article perhaps had some material/sources that the Firby, Hambleton article could be improved with. Crouch, Swale has done a good job of removing all the irrelevant material, but we're then left with a non-notable stub which does not pass GNG. WP:NNAME requires at least two articles matching a surname for notability and as far as I can see we have none for Firby. WJ94 (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Trey Maturin. Suonii180 (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 15:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1st Infantry Division (France)[edit]

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

Either doesn't meet notability guidelines or is a hoax. The article is translated from frwiki, which cites 5 sources, only 2 of which even mention the division (the third and fourth for any curious editors). Furthermore, the sources section in the enwiki article only says "this article is translated from French Wikipedia", which makes me further question the authenticity of the article. Either way, I wouldn't blame the author of the article, but it's quite suspicious nevertheless and that's why I'm putting this up for debate. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 16:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and France. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 16:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously? The division existed and is notable. See Rearming the French, pp. 343, 349, 353, 358-359, 364 and 390. Start by reading through that book. The French version of the article supplies good French sources, including Stephane Weiss's «Le jour d'après» : Organisations et projets militaires dans la France libérée Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The book you mentioned as a "good French source" does not mention the 1st Infantry Division at all (I checked while making this entry yesterday). Although I do have to agree that the unit is not a hoax, its notability is questionable when you still can find just 3 sources, most of which only mention the 1st Infantry a few times. I'm certain that these are only mentions scattered across WW2-related sources and not, as notability guidelines state, significant coverage. Thank you for reading, Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 17:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above, Seriously?! A division is not notable? Please! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What makes a division so special? What makes a division transcend notability guidelines, even if you have barely any sources to support an article about it? Explain to me sir. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 19:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact it's a major military formation consisting of thousands of men? Seriously, any military historian would laugh this out of AfD. Take a look at WP:MILUNIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the article is literally about a notable unit. Why is this being written this way [its not even a hoax, so I would argue your AfD is based on a false source]. I read a small bit of french but this is a bad idea Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments to delete are both far stronger and numerically superior. The basic criterion for notability of lists is that the topic of a list should have received WP:SIGCOV as a topic: see WP:LISTN. This has not been demonstrated here. I appreciate that the creator tried to include only notable games, but reviews of individual games only demonstrate notability of those games, not of this list. I'm setting aside the argument about The Rainbow; aside from the disagreement about its nature as a source, it doesn't impact the rest of the discussion materially. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Color Computer 1 and 2 games from third parties[edit]

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

WP:NOTDATA, just a bunch of technical details without context or indication of importance Dronebogus (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a video game list much like List of PC-98 games and List of CD-i games and countless others on Wikipedia at Template:Video game lists by platform.

As for indication of importance, in this list (unlike those other lists and many others on Wikipedia) every game either:

comes from an already-notable publisher (like Avalon Hill), or
was notable enough to have had an article written about it in a publication deemed notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, namely The Rainbow (magazine).

Carney333 (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if they get the sourcing and context problems fixed (unlikely), there's simply no precedent for splitting lists by first party or third party releases. The best possible scenario the article creator could hope for is a merge/scope change of sorts, and even that's a long shot. Sergecross73 msg me 16:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then Be Bold and merge them.
1. Improve, Don't Remove. If something doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, try to fix the problem rather than just remove what's broken. (Nothing stops new contributors from coming back like having all their hard work end up in the bit bucket.)-- WP:DBN
Carney333 (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Youre telling the wrong person this. I did not nominate your article for deletion, and you're not supposed to be "boldly merging" anything once a deletion discussion is actively happening. Besides, there's currently a rather strong consensus going to delete that other article. Merging info there would just get everything deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You did not originally nominate the article for deletion, but you did vote for / advocate deletion in your original post. So you are wrong that I am "telling the wrong person this" - my response pointing to Wikipedia's own stated policy of "Improve, Don't Remove" directly addresses YOUR post. Carney333 (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You said "Then be bold and merge them". I was telling you it was too late to be bold and merge once an AFD is started. Cut it out with these weak "gotcha" attempts. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Color Computer 1 and 2 Games from Tandy. I wish the creator had listened to the views being expressed there so we could have avoided yet another discussion, for the same topic, just from the "not by Tandy" side. -- ferret (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and update or Transwiki. The trash-80 was an important milestone platform 40 years ago, even if it didn't last, and this is a reasonable historical set of software to list... even if it doesn't necessarily fit on Wikipedia in this presentation. It would be a shame to delete this rather than finding an alternative format or platform in which to cover this. Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens Actually is seems this is already at, at least partially or perhaps entirely?, at List of software for the TRS-80. -- ferret (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this is a clear case of needless article forking Dronebogus (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of that list. It was not connected to Template:Video_game_lists_by_platform. In any case, that is a list of all software of all varieties (not just games) for all of the various often incompatible types of TRS-80 computers (not just the CoCo).

Video games clearly are considered notable enough to have their own dedicated articles and lists.

Your post would be like pointing to a list of all types of software (including word processors, spreadsheets, and utilities) for ALL Apple computers regardless of mutual incompatibility (including the Apple II, Mac, and eMate) as a reason to delete List_of_Mac_games. Carney333 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sources don't cover this as a distinct topic. There is nothing discriminate about this list compared to any other point in the game, and a redirect to TRS-80 Color Computer would be the most this deserves. CPORfan (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of BFDIFan707, see investigation)[reply]
Comment - Just a note, to be clear - the vast majority of the sourcing used is from The Rainbow (magazine), a magazine published by Tandy/RadioShack itself. Tandy/RadioShack is also the publisher of the computer platform itself. So this is basically the modern day equivalent to sourcing the entire List of PS5 games to PSN, the PlayStation's storefront. So we're also getting into WP:NOTCATALOGUE territory as well - the product list is just being sourced to the company's own product catalogue. Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. The Rainbow WAS NOT published by Tandy/RadioShack. It was a completely independent publication, as were Hot CoCo, 80 Micro, 80-U.S., The Color Computer News, and many others. Tandy did have some in-house publications, including TRS-80 Microcomputer News (which ran from at least as far back as March/April 1980 to June 1984), and of course their various catalogs, but, again, the Rainbow WAS NOT an in-house Tandy publication. Carney333 (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you had any understanding of the topic matter, you would not only know that The Rainbow was the leading (most notable in Wikipedia jargon) Color Computer magazine, and that it was independent, but also how unthinkable to Tandy it was to even mention (let alone favorably review), or run ads for, software and hardware products not provided and sold by Tandy itself, as The Rainbow and all the independent publications did. Tandy's consistent pattern from start to finish of ignoring all third party products and attempting to monopolize the market for the various families of TRS-80 computers was a central dynamic and driving factor in this market, a constant grievance against the company by the user community, and contributed significantly to the eventual demise of those computer families. Carney333 (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going by the wording on its Wikipedia article (The Rainbow was a monthly magazine for the TRS-80 Color Computer by the Tandy Corporation (now RadioShack).) because it was the only thing I could find on the obscure publication. I'd look further but this wasn't particularly a centerpiece of my argument so it's not like it changes my stance. Sergecross73 msg me 02:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Serge makes an excellent point above regarding WP:NOTCATALOGUE, which is a Wikipedia policy. Zero worthwhile independent coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Serge is in error. The article about The Rainbow uses confusing language at present. It currently starts,

"The Rainbow was a monthly magazine for the TRS-80 Color Computer by the Tandy Corporation (now RadioShack)."
The phrase "by the Tandy Corporation" here is providing explanatory detail about the computer, NOT about the magazine. Carney333 (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've yet to provide a single counter to LISTN concerns or NOTCATALOGUE concerns. -- ferret (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to use Wikipedia jargon on a newcomer, it would be courteous to link to the actual policy a given acronym or jargon item refers to. I searched Wikipedia for LISTN and came up empty.
Avoid excessive Wikipedia jargon. When linking to policies or guidelines, do so in whole phrases, not wiki shorthand. - Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers#How_to_avoid_being_a_"biter".

Carney333 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been linked to you repeatedly here and at the other AFD. Your own use of jargon and plenty of linking to the Wikipedia project space suggests you're not quite as unfamiliar or lost as you profess. -- ferret (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do see now that there is a link to it in the other page. But you specifically also stated "repeatedly here". That is not true. It is not only not "repeatedly" linked here, it is not linked here even once. Carney333 (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "catalog" criticism:

I could have just listed every third-party game I could find that merely existed (as others have done in countless other video game lists) as shown by having been advertised in publications like The Rainbow, and I think I even began with some such intentions. But in the face of criticism I then shifted to only listing a game in this third-party list if it was notable enough to get a review article (or article segment) or to have some other equivalent third-party coverage. I mentioned this four days ago above.

Furthermore, in the discussion about the Tandy games article, I went into detail, in a direct response to you, about how the catalog numbers are just a standard part of identifying nomenclature in this particular context. They could just as well be called product numbers, serial numbers, or the like.

You're of course free to disagree with me about the validity or persuasive power of my "counters". But please don't deny their existence. Carney333 (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by LISTN criticism. Can you be specific about something I have NOT responded to?

If the concern is that a list is somehow unworthy, I've responded to that already, by pointing to advantages of a list.

If the concern is that there should not be two separate lists, I've responded to that already in detail explaining that similar splits have been done with other platforms, that even if that were not the case that it makes sense to do that here, and finally offering as a compromise to merge the two lists.

If the concern is that no list of Color Computer games is somehow worthy of existence here on Wikipedia, can you explain how? How does THIS list fail that test while other lists(Template:Video_game_lists_by_platform) pass? What is it that they have that this does not? And, SPECIFICALLY, why could I not just add what they have that this does not, instead of us resorting to deleting the entire article (the Improve, Don't Remove principle)? Instead of dismissing this reasonable question with "whatabout" I ask you to actually engage it. Is it actually reasonable to require, and common for a list of video games to have, as a justification for its existence, some sort of article or citation pointing out that the entire body of video games of that platform or criterion is somehow noteworthy as an entire list? Not the platform being noteworthy, not individual games or video games as such being noteworthy, no, that LIST, AS A LIST has to be justified with some cite? Carney333 (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTN: Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources..... You have no such sources. You keep adding sources to verify individual details of individual games. -- ferret (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to WP:NOTCATALOGUE. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 14:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renaldo Bedini[edit]

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

I can't find any coverage of this footballer at all outside of World Football and Football Database, so there is no evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. This person should not be confused with the Argentine lawyer 'Reinaldo Bedini', who has been in the news quite a lot in the past year or so. Bedini has a few professional appearances so PROD would be contested, unfortunately. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The name does not appear in Albanian news and sport websites. Far from WP:Notability. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 14:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christoforos Charalambous[edit]

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

I can't find anything even close to meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Best I can find is Omonoia News (translated version), which is a basic announcement of contract expiry from a website that focuses solely on one Cypriot club, so therefore has very low standards for inclusion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; can't find any significant coverage online. Jogurney (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 14:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Ahmed (tennis)[edit]

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

Potentially fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. Possibly did meet NTENNIS at the time of creation as Davis Cup was previously an automatic notability pass. This was subsequently removed after a community discussion. The best source I can find is this trivial mention in Saudi Gazette. Matters are not helped by the fact that his name is so ridiculously common, making a WP:BEFORE search very difficult in both Arabic and English. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest living Major League Baseball players[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It does not exist to cater to anyone who might wonder who the 46th oldest living Major League Baseball player is. Surtsicna (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Sports, and Baseball. Surtsicna (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes NLIST. Nominated three previous times and kept each time. Whether you or I might think the topic is "trivial", people are interested in it and reliable sources track and cover it. Baseball Almanac maintains a list here. It seems to be a characteristic that folks care about, and it's a regular subject for reportage whenever someone at or near the top of the list dies, celebrates a birthday, becomes the oldest, etc. Examples: Cunningham, Werber,Hopkins, Hoff, Doerr, Otis, Doscher, Abbey, Hoy, Simmons, O'Neil, Malinosky, Latham. Cbl62 (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although I vote keep, the article needs sourcing! Cbl62 (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is incredible to me that this thing survived three previous nominations. I must confess I did not see them. How do you even source this thing? Which source says Dick Hall is the 46th oldest living? Forgive me, I am mind-boggled. Surtsicna (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and failing WP:NLIST. When the oldest former MLB (or Negro league) player is called out for the last time, that is noted in his obituary. (Or if it's a slow news day, newspapers will write about whatever the oldest is doing.) However, that does not have any bearing on listing the nth oldest survivors. When the 46th oldest MLB player does something newsworthy, his ranking is not a fact that gets noticed by the media. It is baseball-almanac.com's (and other baseball sites') job to create and maintain lists like that, not Wikipedia's. Or are we also supposed to have a list of the final outs of every world series? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate information, Wikipedia has been shown multiple times in the past to not be a collection of “list of very old people by occupation they had at some point” articles. Dronebogus (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TIME TO PUT SOME SALT ON THIS TURKEY. MurrayGreshler (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hold the salt. Salt is appropriate for "pages that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated." This page has been repeatedly kept. Cbl62 (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sheer statistical trivia of little encyclopedic value. Yes the sources above note the single oldest or second oldest player dying or turning an old age, but that doesn't translate to the notability or significance of the 100 oldest who did something many decades earlier now coincidentally having longevity. Reywas92^Talk 17:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a top 100 seems excessive. A historical list of each person who has held the title of "oldest living Major League Baseball player" would be more appropriate given the focus of the coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Clarityfiend. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Surtsicna and Dronebogus. Nythar (💬-❄️) 02:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I just ping Dronebogus? It was a Template:No ping. Sorry if I did, I received a notification that said you were notified. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 02:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Launcher X[edit]

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

Non-notable software, minimal independent SIGCOV. A few sentences in a medical journal and a scant paragraph in a how-to book are not sufficient IMO. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. It doesn't help that with such a generic name it's hard to search for, and isn't the only thing with that name. Searching for this is crowded with "Something X Launcher" or "Launcher X" but nothing of relevance about this particular article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to nominate this article for deletion and saw that it is already done. --Suitskvarts (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Long-orphaned article for a piece of software with non-existent coverage. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fabric sound evaluation system[edit]

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

Zero independent sources indicating notability of this "system" for sound evaluation of fabric. (Whether sources exist about fabric sounds in general is another animal.) The other sources mostly predate the publication of this specific system, so they cannot possibly have been written about it. The 2007 source does not cite the paper, so it is unlikely that it discusses the system in any detail. Nothing else found on a search.

All aside from that, in its present form, this exists as a summary of a research paper, which is probably a copyright issue. So at best even if sources were located to indicate that the idea is notable, it still needs WP:TNT. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment The subject of fabric noisiness is a serious concern in some areas. Think of the extreme winter gear armed forces use. Those specialist fabrics, everything proof using technical membranes a la "Gore-Tex" are all well and good, but they are astonishingly noisy, to the extent that the difference between different armed forces response to the same problem, noisewise, can be astonishing. Thus, the problem is real, but this study is a Primary attempt to quantify the noise issue reproduceably, and on that basis, not yet notable. This paper appears to try to cover the wider consumer related issues of fabric related noise. Sources like Booth are excellent, and Kawabata 'wrote the book' on assessment of drape and hand, but this topic is probably not mature enough yet, so I'm leaning to delete. I'd love to see the paper though. -Roxy the dog 10:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I want to be clear I'm not disputing the notability of the concept of "fabric sounds" or even "scientific evaluation of fabric sounds", but specifically this system for doing so. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was clear to me, thanks though. Delete as the paper is a primary source if used as a source. -Roxy the dog 14:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. An article on the sound of fabric would be very welcome but this is not it. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Willms[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. The current refs are his own YouTube videos or Twitter. Wrote a couple of pieces, e.g., 1, and is mentioned trivially here but I could not find any coverage meeting SIGCOV. (P.S. this person is apparently popular but popularity isn't synonymous with notability, by the way looking at 1, 2, the 50 million views claim seems also to be highly dubious). VickKiang (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. VickKiang (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and Montana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He writes for Campus Reform, but that's about all I can find for him. No articles about him.Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was also nominating this article for deletion with the same criteria after seeing it in . 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Little Rock[edit]

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

Per extensive recent consensus on these types of lists, they must meet WP:NLIST/WP:GNG. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Shreveport and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama which both closed as clear delete, with closure statements refuting the argument that any other criteria takes precedence over notability for these lists. The recent delete consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Charleston, South Carolina affirms the consensus from the prior two discussions.

These closures clearly confirm the community's mindset about "tallest buildings" lists - sources are required, and notability standards must be met. I was not able to locate any significant coverage of the topic of tall buildings in Little Rock, Arkansas as a whole, so in my opinion, GNG/NLIST is not met. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and Arkansas. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only source cited is a dead link. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

( Blocked sockpuppet of BFDIFan707, see investigation)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Delete - as we've too many of these 'list' articles. Note, I'm not a republican, to boot. I love skyscrapers, because tall towers and skyscrapers, but we might also have other buildings that is not skyscrapers. Should we have articles called "list of tallest buildings in France" or "list of tallest buildings in Indonesia"? Or a list of official languages of the European Union or a list of words in Italian? I struggle to think so. This list is getting absurd, just a junk of trivial, unsourced, and unlinked collections. CPORfan (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Aaaa...I don't want to argue with someone who's agreeing with me in general, but we do actually have both those lists, and more. (See Template:Tallest buildings and structures - there's about 80 national-level lists). Lists at the national level are a lot more likely to have significant coverage than lists for most individual towns and cities. As well, the tallest buildings at the national level are more likely to be notable, so those lists do a more practical job of actually being navigational aids. My beef isn't with all of these lists - or lists in general! - it's just with ones that don't have adequate sourcing to support the notability of the topic. (As a nitpicky side note, a list of words in Italian would be off-scope for Wikipedia, so it's a bit of a straw man. List of languages of the European Union doesn't exist, but languages of the European Union does, and it's actually a pretty good article.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Blocked sockpuppet of BFDIFan707, see investigation)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Delete - as we've too many of these 'list' articles. Note, I'm not a republican, to boot. I love skyscrapers, because tall towers and skyscrapers, but we might also have other buildings that is not skyscrapers. Should we have articles called "list of tallest buildings in France" or "list of tallest buildings in Indonesia"? Or a list of official languages of the European Union or a list of words in Italian? I struggle to think so. This list is getting absurd, just a junk of trivial, unsourced, and unlinked collections. CPORfan (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaa...I don't want to argue with someone who's agreeing with me in general, but we do actually have both those lists, and more. (See Template:Tallest buildings and structures - there's about 80 national-level lists). Lists at the national level are a lot more likely to have significant coverage than lists for most individual towns and cities. As well, the tallest buildings at the national level are more likely to be notable, so those lists do a more practical job of actually being navigational aids. My beef isn't with all of these lists - or lists in general! - it's just with ones that don't have adequate sourcing to support the notability of the topic.

(As a nitpicky side note, a list of words in Italian would be off-scope for Wikipedia, so it's a bit of a straw man. List of languages of the European Union doesn't exist, but languages of the European Union does, and it's actually a pretty good article.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This will be the fifth "list of tallest building in X" AfD that I've commented on and unfortunately I've suggested "Delete" on all of them and all for the same reason: like the others, this article fails WP:NLIST, as sources do not discuss "tallest buildings in Little Rock" as a group. I feel like a broken record but there's only so many ways to say "Fails WP:NLIST". - Aoidh (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Taylor (composer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Peter Taylor (composer)

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

This is the biography of a musician and composer of library music for film and television. There's a lot of name-dropping (not all for people with their own Wikipedia pages) but notability is not inherited and I cannot find anything that would fulfill the notability criteria at WP:CREATIVE or WP:ANYBIO. There are a few other musicians with the same name, but this Peter Taylor doesn't appear to have garnered significant coverage. Also bundling Peter Reno, a music project with which he was involved alongside Cliff Twemlow, whose page was recently deleted. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can only find articles or books mentioning a writer named Peter Taylor, or a musician named Russell Peter Taylor, but nothing on this exact Peter Taylor. The source cited is from this publisher, which does not seem be notable or reliable. As for the two external links provided, the first one only has this much to say about the artist, and the second one did not even mention the subject. Coupled with the fact that Studiostrooz only ever edited this page and the page for Peter Reno, leads me to believe that this article is only ever written for self promotion. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G11 (non-admin closure) BangJan1999 20:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Postland[edit]

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

Postland

This article has no references, and so cannot possibly meet film notability. This is also a conflict of interest edit, since the name of the originator of the article and the name of the director are the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's just a sentence long. Not reasonable for an article Jaguarnik (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything outside of Reddit, Twitter, Newgrounds etc. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per A1 and probably G11 as well. Editor likely has a COI as the producer additionally. Izzy Moony_{Hi new friend!} 11:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: why is this thing even still around? Zap, kill, destroy it. Blatant G1. MurrayGreshler (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kaytee. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CritterTrail[edit]

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

Non-notable brand that lacks WP:SIGCOV. Only sources included in article are a blog, a retail website, and an ad that only promotes the subject. A WP:BEFORE only found trivial information and advertisements. ‡ The Night Watch ω (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Products. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kaytee, where the product is already mentioned. Joyous! | Talk 17:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest merging to Kaytee since it is mentioned there and could use an expansion. Roost^T_C(please ping me when replying) 11:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Roost I don’t think the content here should be merged to Kaytee. The sources are unreliable and the content I found online reflected the same. Also, the sentence mentioning the CritterTrail was removed as unsourced.
‡ The Night Watch ω (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: or redirect to Kaytee. MarioGom (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Sri Lanka Police Sports Club cricketers. Boldly speedy close since we're all in agreement and the list now exists. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Kiriella[edit]

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

Single-appearance cricketer, no significant coverage located on a search. ~~No player list to redirect to.~~ Now there's a player list I'm very happy to say redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there were a List of Sri Lanka Police Sports Club cricketers then a redirect to there would be in order. There isn't and given his unspectacular appearance, the lack of any information about any other matches and the number of people who have played for the team, a list is unlikely to be created any time soon. In these sorts of cases we tend to simply delete - although if a list is created my opinion would obviously be for a redirect Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As always, I'd say that a single "List of X cricketers" should exist for every club in situations like this. I wish I had thought of it at the time - way before the paywall existed on CA. It's still do-able, but since I've been so busy on other things, I've been too tired. Bobo . 09:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete in absence of suitable redirect~~ As BST states, the suitable list for redirect doesn't exist, and it being unlikely that suitable GNG passing sourcing exists on the subject, delete is likely the only option without a suitable WP:ATD unless the list is created in the near future. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Sri Lanka Police Sports Club cricketers Updating my vote now that the page has been created as a suitable WP:ATD. I see the nom has no issue with redirect, if @Premeditated Chaos: wishes to close this and BOLDy redirect i'd have no objection. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Sri Lanka Police Sports Club cricketers which was on my, er, list of things to do. I've been working through these lately after I realised that Chilaw Malians was the only SL first-class club with a list of players. There are 26 first-class clubs playing in Sri Lanka's Major League Tournament (this year's competition ended only a few days ago) and they all need a players' list. I've done fourteen now and I'll create the other twelve soon. Ten of the lists are incomplete with only one or two letters done so if anyone can help with population that would be appreciated. I use CricketArchive as the source, however. I've done the letter K for the PSC list as it includes Kamal Kiriella. Bc Jvs UTC 12:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. The nominator has subsequently ivoted in the discussion to "keep". Early participants have also shown that this AfD will get even snowier. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonation[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article. There are only two sources in there, and it is entirely unsourced. CPORfan (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Science, and Technology. CPORfan (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable concept. AFD is not cleanup. Andre🚐 03:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason for delete it. CPORfan (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a notable concept that simply needs more to be written on it. It has nearly 57k hits on JSTOR and 91.8 million hits on Google- clearly not "non-notable".Jaguarnik (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have no reason for delete it. Just we want to delete or keep it? I don't know what the hell is this. CPORfan (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - If you do not want to delete it, why did you nominate it for deletion? Adding a clean-up tag would have been fine. Jaguarnik (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sita Ramanka Bahaghara Kali Jugare[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. The refs are: routine announcement from a questionably WP:RS source with little editorial policies, an non-SIGCOV announcement on trailer and cast merely being six sentences long, the site has an about us but I did not locate precise editorial policies demonstrating that this is RS or equivalent in reliability with a credible WP:NEWSORG. Ref 3 briefly covers minor production details, ref 4 is a few sentences announcement that, unless I'm totally wrong, covers Sitaramula Kalyanam Chuthamu Raarandi, also at AfD, instead of this subject. Ref 5 is a routine database with synopsis and user scores, no review from a critic, ref 6 is a minor single paragraph announcement on songs and cast members, then there's a video and IMDb. As per GNG, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, which is the case here. My BEFORE didn't find sources contributing to notability, NFILM criteria are also failed. VickKiang (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find any reviews in a Google search. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk} ! 10:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found no reviews in search, fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 13:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elsmere Public School[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NSCHOOl. This school also fails Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable#Elementary and Middle schools. It is not notable in any way, and there has been no notable occurances at this school, it says that the school has to be notable in some way and this one is not. I couldnt find anything on the wikipedia libary or google search either.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 02:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United States of America, and Nebraska. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 02:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HelpingWorld: Please Bear in mind this is a full school district and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#School_districts states: ""Populated, legally-recognized places" include school districts, which conveys near-presumptive notability to school districts per Wikipedia:Notability (geography)."
A non-notable school is ordinarily redirected to its school district. Common outcomes states:
- "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally the case in North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body)."
In this case, however, "Elsmere Public School" is a school district of a single school.
Also in regards to "The article from the Lincoln star was wrote by one of the students. " - The end blurb states: "Patti Vannoy wrote this story for a class at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Journalism and Mass Communications" - It was written by a university student (not by a student at Elsmere School), and the Lincoln Star agreed to publish the article and gave full editorial oversight. Therefore this should count as a reliable source.
WhisperToMe (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must of read it wrong, but still my argument still stands, the school district is unnotable itself. I could not find anything about it on wikipedia libary or google itself. I also checked thru wayback machine and couldnt find anything.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 02:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. Oh wait, now I see, I thought this was a school. It certanitly is notable now. My bad, I didnt read the article. Also this article is 5 days old, which means it cand be AFD'ed anyway.@WhisperToMe `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 02:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. FASTILY 01:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Goldberg[edit]

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

dubious notability, some hits on Google Scholar, however I'm skeptical WP:NPROF is satisfied. Created by an SPA/paid editor (Ovedc) with a strong interest in promoting this individual FASTILY 01:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article claims him to have held the position of Ruth and Samuel Jaffe Professor of Mathematics at Technion, which may meet WP:NPROF Criterion 5. Technion is certainly a reputable institution, but does somebody know whether named chairs work the same way in Israel as they do in the US? Felix QW (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein and my comment above. Felix QW (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. The top cited papers in Google Scholar are just a tiny bit below what I would ideally like to see for a WP:NPROF C1 case, but it is very close; it is shored up a little by a long tail of moderately cited papers. But also, under 1c of the NPROF guideline, it specifies that a festschrift in a reputable journal usually suffices for C1. It appears that the subject shared a festschrift in Linear Algebra and Its Applications in 2013 with Abraham Berman and Raphael Loewy (see [3]). The shared part makes it a little unclear, but in combination with the citation record, I think it's enough. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Striking weak, now that the named professorship details have been verified by David Eppstein. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree. GS citations not too bad for a low cited field like pure mathematics. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The named professorship is documented in the university's 2013 president's report [4]. It appears to be the standard sort of named chair used for meeting WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. I moved some stuff around in the article. WP:SNOW applies to the AfD. gidonb (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Stitt[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. Sources are all either routine coverage or not sufficiently independent from subject to establish notability. Jdcooper (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Jdcooper (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as explained above, all sources are simply routine announcements about the company that mention him. Oaktree b (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Oaktree b. It seems routine coverage and annoucements. scope_creep^Talk 08:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Every entry here is a partial title match. I suppose in some contexts The New York Times Company might be referred to as just "The New York Times", but it's already listed in a hatnote at The New York Times, making this DAB superfluous. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Disambiguations, and New York. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - superfluous verging on silly. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the links are included in The New York Times article. Even when the navbox appended there is reduced to a sensible size, a disambig page will not be needed: any missing links should be added to the article itself. I note that the redirect New_York_Times bypasses this disambiguation. Thincat (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The search box autocomplete makes this page look completely silly and useless, and per Thincat, doesn't even dab properly. There are also multiple New York Times buildings through history so it's not working there either. Nate • (chatter) 20:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will note, there does appear to be one actually ambiguous title not listed on the dab, New York Times (song) (redir to Back to Earth (Cat Stevens album)). But that can be hatnoted as well. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well, adding a hatnote for the Cat Stevens song will certainly help to raise its visibility...but agree it seems the DAB page in its current state isn't necessary. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If significant coverage can be found, contact me and we can revisit this decision and perhaps move the article to Draft or User space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Diving Society[edit]

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

Not-notable hobby organisation. No sign of sufficient independent coverage. Jdcooper (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jdcooper (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. I could not find coverage outside of references like "this person was a member". ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV present. Sources i found on GNEWS were mostly passing mentions. Jamiebuba (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Searches across Wikipedia Library (using the cross-database search function which is handy) and ProQuest generate well over a hundred results, even after discounting all the journal articles that were likely published by the Historical Diving Society itself. This is going to take a long time to sort through. I wouldn't rush to suggest that coverage doesn't exist. (But yes, the current state of the article is not good.) Cielquiparle (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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