< December 03 December 05 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Fisher (cyclist)[edit]

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

due to not meeting notability threshold due to lack of significant coverage and as per Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Cycling. His only stage win was in a 2.2 category event, which does not meet the notability requirement of Won (a stage, or an overall individual classification) a Grand Tour or finished on the podium of a Monument or Won a UCI category race (minimum classification 1.1 / 2.1, including Continental and National Championships). KeepItGoingForward (talk)

They don't meet Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Basic_criteria. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did I mention that guideline sports? No, I referenced WP:GNG. Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please link those sources? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that do not meet Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Basic_criteria? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rider does not meet any of the significant coverage on Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Cycling: Significant coverage is likely to exist for a male cyclist if he meets: Won a UCI World Tour; Won (a stage, or an overall individual classification) a Grand Tour or finished on the podium of a Monument; Won the UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup; Won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship); Won a UCI category race (minimum classification 1.1 / 2.1, including Continental and National Championships). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeepItGoingForward (talk • contribs) 05:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that the Fischer does not meet the basic criteria for sport's person of, "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article." KeepItGoingForward (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@KeepItGoingForward as nominator you do not get to vote, you making this page counts as the vote. Please remove your entry. Paulpat99 (talk) 07:11, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) jp×g 02:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stade Montchaninois[edit]

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

Seems to be a unsourced article for a regional team who's website seems dead? Mr.weedle (talk) 22:10, 20 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! 22:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:01, 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. – Joe (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reformist Socialists[edit]

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

As the page introduction itself admits, this is a tiny party; it has sporadically participated in a few local elections (with poor results). The page about this party is written in three lines and is practically orphan (except for a not necessary mention on the SDI page); furthermore few sources mention it, almost exclusively with reference to the leader Donato Robilotta and not to the party itself. It does not seem to me that this party meets WP:GNG. I can imagine replies like that the sources have disappeared because a few years have passed from its foundation and that every little piece of political history deserves to have an article on Wikipedia, but if notability cannot be proved it cannot be assumed, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:18, 20 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! 22:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to edit the article unless this discussion ends with "keep": too many articles have been recently deleted and I do not want to waste time. It might be difficult to find sources online on a minor party, which is still active (see here), but whose brightest days are behind. However, a political party which was represented in a Regional Council (see here) and has been active for 15+ years is de facto encyclopedic. Again, I hope the article will be kept and, after that, I will be more than willing to improve it. If that is not possible, I hope it can at least be merged with New Italian Socialist Party. --Checco (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first one you provide is a blog post that lists all of the parties for an election in one town. It includes this party, so that shows it was in that election. But not RS. The second has a two-line quote from the head of the party. I know that it is difficult to find whole articles about the party because it is a minor party in a crowded field. But without significant sources it is not "de facto encyclopedic." I'm neutral on whether it is merged but delete for keeping as a separate article. Lamona (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The blog is the most authoritative and complete source on political parties in Italy and, by the way, the RS is mentioned for the 2022 municipal election in Rieti, Lazio (check number 16) of the list). I mentioned source 1 to show that the party is still active and it has been active for some 15 years, and source 2 to show that the party was represented in the Regional Council of Lazio, an assembly representing 5.5+ million people. --Checco (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there RS coverage or no?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@It Is Me Here In reality, the French page doesn't add much else, except for a decidedly wrong statement: this party never participated in the Umbrian regional election in 2010, the list that participated was linked to the Italian Socialist Party.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for taking a look. I'm fine for it to be deleted then, per commenters above. It Is Me Here (talk) 15:05, 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 keep. I am closing this discussion early per our rule WP:SNOW because it is evident that it will not end in a consensus to delete the article. There are valid arguments being made for a merger to Hunter Biden laptop controversy, but it will not be possible to determine any consensus for or against this in this very long and unwieldy discussion that is mainly about whether the article should be deleted or not. Accordingly, this "keep" closure only determines that the article should not be deleted at this time. It does not preclude a merger discussion or any other discussion about how to organize our coverage of this topic area. Sandstein 15:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter Files Investigation[edit]


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

I don't know where to start explaining why this should be deleted. It's a disaster. Maybe we can have a Twitter Files article, but not this one. soibangla (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start…
1. Twitter Files probably needs its own separate page from Laptop story… there will be more “reveals”.
2. Wikipedia will become irrelevant & obsolete if it takes a censorship stance. People are already aware that it’s a publicly maintained site with potentially inaccurate or biased info… censorship has no place here in the global commons. 72.66.79.219 (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has been biased for a long time and too many individuals that have no interest in facts are allowed to edit way too much. Unlike the days of Brittanica which had no less than 5-6 SCHOLARS that edited and reviewed the work, this allowed them to remain neutral as well as relevant. 174.125.30.248 (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@174.125.30.248, Yes. We are biased. We're biased and we're proud of it. I'm proud of it, not everyone is or agrees, see comment below by jpxg. But I think the point still stands. casualdejekyll 01:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont speak for all editors User:Casualdejekyll. Thanks Nweil (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Casualdejekyll: Please strike this comment, or clarify that you are speaking only for yourself. I have made about seventy thousand edits, and have spent hundreds of hours trying to write good articles that eliminate bias (whether political or otherwise). I realize that you are deliberately linking to a troll essay in order to get a rise out of people; I have no objection to amusing yourself online, but I do object to you doing so by implying that Wikipedia editors are a bunch of hacks. jp×g 11:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, see their link. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nythar: I am well-acquainted with the essay and stand by what I said: it is disgraceful to the project to say that we are "proud of" being biased when we all know that the overwhelming majority of people see "biased" and think that it means "biased" rather than some convoluted, idiosyncratic fine-print definition of "bias" where it means "doesn't believe in Lysenkoism". jp×g 11:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think without a healthy level of snark this discussion would be even more of a disaster it already was. But I'll clarify. And It's true that I was speaking as the community when I really shouldn't have been. casualdejekyll 14:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell where to put this, but stop coming here because someone recruited you. It's become impossible to read this debate, it's turned into more of a flame war with people making personal attacks and comparing everyone to a politician they don't like than an actual AfD discussion. Read everything up at the top of the page. Like, actually read it. Not read the name of the policies and infer their meaning.
If you have a problem with Wikipedia's "bias", bring it up on Wikipedia. Do not recruit a massive group of editors to help you. Do not focus solely on changing this "bias". We are here to build an encyclopedia. We do not allow people who only intend to change a perceived "bias" into something that is just biased in an opposite way. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1 is the overriding point, and there shouldn't be a debate beyond that. If the later reveals have a name other than "The Twitter Files," then the page name should change accordingly, but for socio-historical significance alone, this needs to remain a separate and fully present page. The notion that this is (or will remain) solely a piece of sub-content to the Hunter Biden laptop story appears to be short-sighted.
The real crux of the situation is the willful suppression of what turned out to be factual material on the largest microblogging site currently running by a specific group of people in cooperation with elected officials representing one specific political party. Given that those involved with releasing the internal Twitter communiqués (Musk, Taibbi, Weiss, et. al.) are implying there was a pattern of these kinds of decisions within the company, then the later reveals may have nothing to do with the laptop story, at which point Hunter Biden connection would actually become the sub-topic of a larger page focused on of these Twitter releases.
Folding this into the Hunter Biden Laptop topic would be premature. Deleting the page outright would only give credence to those accusing the site of political bias and likely lose future contributions. Case in point: I only knew about the page and this debate because there's an external debate as well due to the notice on the page suggesting Wikipedia wants to delete it outright, and no mention of merging it with another page. ADWNSW (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you are arguing that the article should remain as it is a subject that will be notable in the future. Please consider WP:CRYSTAL, orWP:NEXIST - an article is not notable unless it is notable now. In order to be notable, it would need to be considered notable for some other reason (e.g. shocking claims that had a widespread impact) by independent sources - which is very different from a single celebrity "implying there was a pattern".
If this event does become notable in the future, there is no reason why this page cannot simply be restored. Wikipedia is intended to be read as it is right now. Articles that merely may one day be notable clearly should not be something presented to readers right now.
On the contrary to "only confirming bias", deleting the page would be setting a bad precedent that justifies the creation of articles on topics that notable figures claim will be significant - this precedent would be made stronger by it being so public. 58.178.108.163 (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE 197.136.58.40 (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Until another article is written, this one should remain in place.
The point of Wikipedia is not "first time is right." It's to present the information and have the community edit it per the Wikepedia process.
It is important this starting point remain in place for the time being. TcozWiki (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — TcozWiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Its a big deal, of course it deserves a wiki page. 108.185.139.118 (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does this make any sense? The article exists. If you find it lacking then fix it. Deletion is not correction. The topic is clearly notable and meets GNG. Your response is lazy and screams censorship. Xenomancer (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Xenomancer, please do not accuse others of censorship unless there is actual evidence (or behavior) indicating censorship. Regards, — Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your desire to maintain civility. I am not trying to senselessly sling epithets. What else do you want me to call it? The evidence and behavior are apparent in the plain text of the statement I responded to. The response to an article perceived as lacking was to suggest deletion rather than correction, and with no explanation beyond calling it a "disaster". This was followed with the suggestion that the page could be allowed but only after the extant article is deleted. How else am I to interpret this? It is blatant. The wholesale removal of the work of other authors for the sake of someone else's shallowly professed feelings would aptly be called censorship, in my opinion. Please tell me what other word(s) you would use to describe this. Xenomancer (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss content and policy, not editor motives. The essay you are looking for that summarizes your position is Deletion is not cleanup. Slywriter (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Xenomancer, you are correct, the argument could have been more specific. However, instead of "censorship", you could say WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. But for an average editor reviewing this page, they probably won't be focusing only on the nominator's comment. From what I can see below, there are arguments for deleting, keeping, or merging, and users are engaged in active conversation (no indication of censorship). — Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will call out subjective editing that smacks of censorship on a whole list of articles on here. I do not need to name individuals because that is useless and will turn into a tit for tat. Bottom line is, Twitter is RELEVANT, Elon Musk is RELEVANT and the Hunter Laptop which has been acknowledged by the Washington Post, The New York Times, Washington Times, etc. is RELEVANT. What twitter did behind the scenes to bury the lead is also RELEVANT. That was censorship, albeit under the new dogwhistle of "disinformation". I command Xenomancer for calling it out. 174.125.30.248 (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
174.125.30.248, Xenomancer wasn't accusing Twitter of censorship, they were accusing an editor of censorship, specifically soibangla (from my observations). Editors shouldn't accuse others of censorship unless there's evidence, or if it's obvious. Read the discussion above. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 01:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The level of coverage of an issue by the main stream media can NEVER even be a factor in determining whether a subject should be deleted. Of what use or benefit could Wikipedia be should it be guided by a prejudiced set of institutions in deciding what's relevant? A forum must remain a forum, and all that takes is the continuing return to it by civil contributors and/or any substantial amount of readers. 73.106.38.213 (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 68.98.61.205 (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 68.98.61.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Wikipedia was never a reliable source in the first place: that was never the point. More importantly, the author of the Twitter Files said that "there is no evidence - that I’ve seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story." (CNN)
Oh, and also none of what you said is a policy-based reason for deletion. casualdejekyll 03:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This site should not get in start deleting relevant files. Elon Musk has shared this and despite some media ignoring it, this is another site that should be accessible no matter what, Cwojahn (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, an IPV6 gets an SPA template? First, an IP cannot be an SPA, second, IPV6 addresses change so often, you can't have a damn clue what edits that person has actually made. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm not sure how this is even a discussion. This is an event with large cultural and political ramifications. Why would we want to censor this? Briang7723 (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Briang7723 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Strongly agree Pixk1 (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Pixk1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Keep. No mater the ile you side with the Twitter Files Investigation prove the US government used social media to violate the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution and silence opposition and Journalists covering content harmful to Presidential candidates. If this is Deleted it goes against everything Wikipedia was created for a free open source collection of articles meant to preserve history against "Revisionist" history.
Matt Taibi Clearly stated this "System" of oppression on twitter was used by both Democrats and Republicans, which in and of it self should serve as a wake up call to the American people and all of Wikipedias users.
If Freedom Fails in the United States of America tyranny will win world wide. Don't let this fall into the "Revisionist" section of history. FreeThinkingPanda (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — FreeThinkingPanda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Very well said Cwojahn (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- the following is an answer by Wikisempra, creator of the page: What exactly “but not this one” means? If one decides to suggest a deletion, the most honourable path towards it should be to state why it should be deleted. Users, like me — and most on Wikipedia - try to add information. Calling someone’s work, that is carefully referenced and a major story in news, a “disaster” without addressing why is no way to conduct a dialogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisempra (talk • contribs) 21:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - While not meeting the technicalities of a single-purpose account, user Arugia has been largely inactive until this entry was made. ValarianB (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? The public doesn't have the right to comment? Oh, I get it, only the few get to decide what is or is not relevant. Go ahead, delete it and I promise you the Wikipedia will come to regret that decision. You want to remain relevant? Don't censor it. 174.125.30.248 (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amen! 174.125.30.248 (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anticipated future events do not mean that a given topic currently meets criteria for inclusion (WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NRV). Wikipedia is also not a soapbox, so the idea the article is "crucial to [Wikipedia's] survival" is not a reason for its inclusion either. EmilyIsTrans (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe user Arugia was making the point that if Wikipedia comes down on the side of pro censorship that would be harmful to Wikipedia's long term future survival. Mathmo Talk 10:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the "censorship". Can you provide any example of censorship? — Nythar (💬-❄️) 10:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - while not meeting the definition of a "single purpose account", this account has been largely inactive until this AfD. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly a noteworthy and real event. Deleting would show Wikipedia's true bias. Jzoch2 (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Jzoch2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep.  This is a developing story, with well-established journalists – Taibbi former Rolling Stone editor, and author of several books, and Bari Weis formerly of the New York Times.   While this story clearly needs more development, we are only at the beginning.  There is every reason to believe more is coming.  What we have seen so far shows significant malfeasance on the part of Twitter, the FBI, and political campaigns.  Reasoning that states “delete this article  because the story is a dud according to the media”, should be self-canceling.  That same media told us the story was Russian disinformation.   HarryRAlexander (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — HarryRAlexander (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - While not meeting the technicalities of a single-purpose account, user Ninety Mile Beach has been largely inactive until this entry was made. ValarianB (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break[edit]

Keep (eventually Merge) - the article is well stated and definitely unbiased. Eventually this should probably be merged to the results of the outcome of the story (either expanding the discussion of Hunter Biden's Laptop or Twitter's oversight of their content) Rwezowicz (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Rwezowicz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The RSs are literally in the article? Nweil (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's no real argument for deleting this information. It is confirmed the laptop, and its contents, are real and were generated by Hunter Biden. It is also a fact, Twitter was approached by the Biden campaign, and FBI personnel, to block distribution of the NY Post article and related topics. The purpose was to manipulate information relevant to a Presidential candidate, thus interfering with an election. That's a level of corruption, from those in government service (FBI personnel and members of Congress involved) we all need to know. To argue we should delete factual, confirmed, material is a disservice to all of us, and destroys all of Wikipedia's credibility. Moses963 (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Moses963 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
completely correct 96.38.143.71 (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And to those who accuse Wikipedia of Left-wing bias, there are lots of short-term articles that get deleted. For example, Hillary Clinton's Delete your account was an article that I created back in 2016 because there were lots of news reports and memes at the time, such as Time Magazine, NY Times, and NPR. However, that had no long-term effect. Trump didn't delete his account at all. Instead, Twitter banned him in 2021, before bing reinstated by Musk in late 2022. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 23:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't fit in either of those suggested articles because it involves more than just the laptop story, and is being released by more journalists than Matt Taibbi. I see no instance of WP:CRYSTAL being violated in the article in question. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly would you advocate handling Bari Weiss' use of the materials when that starts coming out? It makes little sense to merge a scoop handed to one of two reporters on the reporter's personal page. Your proposal just doesn't work. TMLutas (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People who are thinking about commenting in this discussion should also note that the essay you link to (WP:YWAB) is not Wikipedia policy Nweil (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of a strawman there, as no one was claiming it was policy, that person just offered it as a useful read. There are many users who have been here for many, many years. They write essays like this, which are clearly marked as such, to offer their observations and guidance on various matters. Zaathras (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is not Wikipedia policy either, and yet people still cite it in deletion discussions: the point of linking the essay was because I didn't find it reasonable to type out the entire contents of the essay into my !vote on an already bloated AfD. casualdejekyll 00:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This isn't about the laptop. It's about the first amendment violations and interference in elections. Fharryn (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Fharryn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Except there are no first amendment violations as the first amendment doesn't apply to non-government entities like Twitter. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is when the request for denial of free speech comes from a government entity which IS subject to the laws of The Constitution. So yeah. Twitter would never be in trouble for this, but the government entities requesting the removal could certainly be. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to fact-check sources or argue about the laws. We are here to judge the content of articles in accordance with our policies. Also, please read said policies before voting. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And for that matter, I have no clue what it has to do with interference in elections either casualdejekyll 01:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I submit that this is a good argument to improve this article instead of deleting/merging it. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's well established at this point (20 years of precedent) that if a section in an article gets too long and unwieldy, it can be split back out easily. WP:SPLIT. I would recommend only attempting such a thing ~3 months+ down the line when we truly know if everyone will have remembered this all or not. casualdejekyll 01:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If no one mentions this 3 months down the line then it can be merged wherever is most appropriate. I see no good argument for deletion, and no sensible suggestion for where it should be merged to right now. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument assumes that "having an article" is the default state. We disagree on this, it seems. casualdejekyll 01:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to surveys, something like 12% (no source for now, but one could be found) of Biden voters would have changed their votes or stayed home had they known Joe Biden was allegedly connected to the wrongdoings. That would have been enough to change the winner in about 9 states. That could have changed the outcome of the election. Fharryn (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Washington Post says no. Your turn to provide a source, please. casualdejekyll 01:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ought to add that there were other accounts that match these characteristics–all also voting some variation of Keep–but I don't think it's the job of a non-admin to catalog every questionable AfD edit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether to keep or delete an article should be based on the merits of the argument and not on the prior Wikipedia editing history of the persons making the argument. If what you say is correct, all that probably suggests is a political bias on the part of regular Wikipedia editors, nothing more. 151.210.141.140 (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're mostly wrong here. There are many single-purpose accounts or canvassed IPs or accounts, which should not be happening. If single-purpose accounts were allowed, someone could just create a dozen accounts and vote "keep" a dozen times, or perhaps use a dozen IPs. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 01:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The final action here won't be based on a vote count, so the argument that "Anyone could create a dozen accounts and vote 'keep/delete'" falls flat. Those people would also have to make a viable argument for the keep/delete... or they will not be considered. If they -can- make a viable argument for keep/delete, then this should not be discounted based on "past participation patterns". 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. While we don't do headcounts in such discussions, the number of editors voting keep/delete can affect the result. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 01:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a valid point if it wasn't for the fact that the "merits of the argument" are hotly debated - and you don't seem to have put forward an argument yourself, either. casualdejekyll 01:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@151.210.141.140: Within controversial AfD discussions, it is standard to review whether the scales might be tipped one way or another by behaviors that are prohibited by policy and applied without regard to partisan persuasion. In this instance, a significant number of Keep votes come from editors whose behaviors are consistent with policy-violating actions. Speaking frankly and at the risk of appearing trite, I am among those disgruntled and disapproving of the suppression campaign against the laptop investigation. However, I think the contents of this article should be merged elsewhere based on policy. Similar merit-based stances are permissible, aggrieved and unsubstantiated claims of bias are not. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Not everyone can be online 25/7 to make changes on a daily basis. 65.190.23.202 (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 65.190.23.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@65.190.23.202: You're right! Some people can commit more time to this project than others, leading to an imbalance of experience between editors. As such, perspectives from established editors with 10 years of unblemished contributions will likely be held in higher esteem than first-time editors. Don't let this dissuade you from contributing, but recognize that in discussions such as these, tenure plays a role. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @99.179.136.46: Information on this will appear somewhere, but just not as its own article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are not voting on whether or not this information is critical alone. Instead, we intend to determine if this needs its own article. If the answer to that is no, then it's also possible that it needs to be a section of some other article, but not have its own article. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 2[edit]

  • @Ciroa: Unrelated to content and not a position taken on merit. Please review the blurb at the top of this page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said. Political editing cannot be allowed to become part of Wikipedia's DNA. That would make it just propaganda, not a source of truth. TZaddo (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — TZaddo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep 65.190.23.202 (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the fact that the theme is already being discussed in American News Media and also picked up in other countries (Like Brazil, India, France, Japan and other places), Also, there is already wik pages about the theme in other languages (eg. here is the Portuguese wiki page about the theme).

Therefore, i see no reason of why it should be deleted, since it is a noteworthy theme that many people will try seek it on internet and (specially) on Wikipedia.

Also

Meganinja202 (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meganinja202, if you haven't heard of single-purpose accounts, then please do read about them. And reducing all "delete" votes to "IDONTLIKEIT" is complete misrepresentation. Finally, it doesn't matter if a dozen news outlets have reported on this. Do you think they'll still be publishing articles about this in the next 1, 3, 5, 10 years? That is more important. Why? Read WP:RECENTISM for a good explanation. Nythar (💬-❄️) 04:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do know about purpose accounts but i don't think this is the case, i believe that most inactive people showed up to voice their concerns about this question in Good Faith.
Also, i do think people will continue talking about it in a way or another, independtly of political spectrium, especially since is already impacting the 2024 US elections debate and newer talks about Government intervention on Social Media are arising.
If people think it is a misunderstood or it just is a theory, they should voice those concerns on the talk page or try to edit to voice their bias better Meganinja202 (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also i said MOST opinions, not ALL opinions, there is a difference Meganinja202 (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Barber: Your comment is tangential to this discussion. If the content is merged to the article on the Hunter Biden laptop controversy, what exactly is being covered up? Please stick to the merits of an article when discussion its deletion or merger. More information on appropriate points of debate can be found here; consider reviewing them and amending your reasoning (you might come to the same conclusion you have already!). ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a "coverup" by trying to reduce one of the biggest stories of the month into merely a footnote of another article. When clearly a topic of this grand scope and importance requires an article of its own. Mathmo Talk 09:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS D4R1U5 (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sofeshue: This is not really a commentary on the subject's notability according to WP:GNG nor its worthiness of being an independent article according to our other policies. Please consider amending your vote to reflect reasoning based on the article and subject's merits. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Nothing new"??? The Twitter Files were shocking even for those people who have been following these types of new stories for years, let alone people who haven't been hearing about it. (which is most people, most people are blissfully unaware of just how much censorship is going on) Mathmo Talk 10:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is incredibly noteworthy. I saw another editor say that this is a nothing burger. Well it should be obvious to everyone that the subject of the article is anything but nothing. I find it astonishing that editors can argue for deletion. Boscaswell talk 09:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a poll -- AfDs are closed according to consensus and consensus is assessed based on arguments that reference policies and guidelines. If a bunch of people show up to post nonsense, it will not have an effect on the outcome of the discussion, so I don't think any such action is needed. Also, I do not understand how you are advocating that it be deleted and merged at the same time (this is not possible). jp×g 11:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a bunch of newspaper articles about a bunch of tweets about a bunch of e-mails about a bunch of tweets, and all of it happened about three days ago, so it's not certain that the thread of discussion will see continued coverage (or that such coverage will establish it as independently notable from the people reporting on it and/or the original controversy). jp×g 11:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't much, but this is receiving continuing significant coverage, [4], [5]. — hako9 (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS. Also at this point of time, anything Elon does makes the news. So that in itself is not a good enough argument. D4R1U5 (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, the 2nd point of WP:NOTNEWS. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 12:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:CRYSTAL. Nythar (💬-❄️) 12:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 3[edit]

Comment Wikipedia isn't a group of people protected by a corporation. It's just people editing in their free time as a hobby. If there's even the slightest hint that these volunteers could have their safety compromised because of this wikipedia page, then of course it must absolutely be deleted. No question. Also white lies and similar forms of accountability/kindness-trade-offs prevent violence by not triggering bad actors. Wikipedia should do what it can when it can to prevent violence, especially when the only cost is some misinformation. Misinformation is a small price to pay when we consider that hurt feelings can very well lead to random butterfly-effect acts of violence. Thus, article deletion really is the only moral option. 13:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2610:148:1f02:5000:80e5:5837:85bd:ae7a (talk)

References

  1. ^ "The Twitter Files, Explained". Gizmodo Australia. 2022-12-04. Retrieved 2022-12-07.
  2. ^ multiple purpose account
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. WP:SNOW. czar 02:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1796 United States Vice Presidential Election[edit]

1796 United States Vice Presidential Election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Under the original system established by Article Two of the U.S. Constitution, electors cast votes for two different candidates for president. The candidate with the highest number of votes became the president, and the second-place candidate became the vice president. There was not a 1796 Vice Presidential Election, and this article gives the false impression that there was. It is also content fork, covering the same subject matter as the 1796 United States presidential election article. Drdpw (talk) 21:47, 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. WP:SNOW. czar 03:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1788-89 Vice Presidential Election[edit]

1788-89 Vice Presidential Election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Under the original system established by Article Two of the U.S. Constitution, electors cast votes for two different candidates for president. The candidate with the highest number of votes became the president, and the second-place candidate became the vice president. There was not a 1788-89 Vice Presidential Election, and this article give the false impression that there was. It is also content fork, covering the same subject matter as the 1788–89 United States presidential election article. Drdpw (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per nom, this was not an actual election, it was part of the presidential election. Reywas92Talk 22:54, 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 List of Sri Lanka Air Force Sports Club cricketers. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Praneeth Hewage[edit]

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

I cannot find that this person passes WP:GNG from my WP:BEFORE and per WP:NCRICKET cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof. While this person does did play in the highest level of domestic cricket in Sri Lanka, I could not find evidence of notability to justify an article. TartarTorte 21:37, 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 no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Sunni Movement[edit]

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

This is the second time this non-notable Bengali organisation is being requested to be deleted. As mentioned by @Owais Al Qarni: in the previous AfD, the article is essentially an advertisement with trivial sources that do not pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Ironically, the article was speedy deleted in Bengali Wikipedia too, yet this article (which is on a Bengali-speaking organisation) still exists on English Wikipedia. In May 2022, the article was restored but not improved in any way shape or form. SalamAlayka (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do not you ask these questions to Editonlineforpassion. Because article undeletion was requested by them. Maliner (talk) 16:54, 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! 22:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Sunni Movement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dfinity[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCRYPTO and WP:NCORP only coverage seems to be about fundraisers, lacks depth. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:52, 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! 21:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources are about funding announcements and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for considering this article for deletion is in the deletion statement at the top of this discussion. The only place to discuss the article subject is on its talk page but that page is for discussing improvements to the article, it's not a discussion forum. This discussion is the place to discuss whether or not the article should be deleted based on Wikipedia policy-based reasons. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline delete - coverage in three RSes, which is good for a crypto thing - but when you look it's funding rounds and WP:CRYSTAL. That's not really enough to pass WP:NCORP. A bit of a REFBOMB of passing mentions and yellow-rated sources that can't be used for notability, like TechCrunch. This isn't there yet - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline delete, Agree with David Gerard, these sources feel like the best of the bunch to me.[1][2][3][4] From my understand of the guidelines listed above, I do not feel that these sources establish notability. You play to win the game (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "EIN COMPUTER FÜR ALLE" [ONE COMPUTER FOR ALL]. Forbes (in German). Retrieved 2022-03-23.
  2. ^ Williams-Grut, Oscar (2018-02-07). "Andreessen Horowitz is backing a crypto-powered 'internet computer' that could be the future of cloud computing". Business Insider. Retrieved 2018-07-03.
  3. ^ "Internet Computer Token Still Gains Developers, Users After Market Cap Tumble". Bloomberg.com. 2021-07-28. Retrieved 2022-08-27.
  4. ^ Livni, Ephrat; Sorkin, Andrew Ross (2021-06-28). "The Dramatic Crash of a Buzzy Cryptocurrency Raises Eyebrows". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-09-18.
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 Horagalles. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pajonn[edit]

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

The article is completely unsourced, and I was unable to find any English-language source on the subject. It may deserve a sentence in Sami mythology or Sami culture or smth similar, but if it remains unsourced it doesn't need a separate article. Artem.G (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked google scholar, and there is no article that talks about the god. I don't think it should be deleted entirely, but merged to another article, as I wrote above. Artem.G (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I saw entries about Pajonn in encyclopedias through google books, but it's merely a mention, just one sentence each in "A Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses, Devils and Demons" and in "The Routledge Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses, Devils and Demons", which seems like different editions of the same book. Artem.G (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. This source also states that Pajon is an alias of Doragass, which in turn is a distorted version of Horagallas. That sources also has a bit more to say than the one-sentence-definition of most of the deity encyclopedias. Daranios (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That source is unavailable for me, but I think you are right. One more solution is to merge it to the Horagalles, but also add Pajonn to the list of gods. Artem.G (talk) 12:53, 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 merge to Sergio Cecotti. Choosing to Merge as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 21:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Convergence for Friuli[edit]

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

A local party that existed (presumably) for a short time, but which does not meet WP:GNG. Apart from some rare mention on articles referring to personalities who were part of it (and not to the party itself), I found only a couple of sources on this party, the first source ([7]) refers to its foundation, the second source ([8]) refers to the substantial absence of this party on the territory and in the press. I can imagine replies like that the sources have disappeared because a few years have passed and that every little piece of political history deserves to have an article on Wikipedia, but I already reply that if notability cannot be proved it cannot be assumed, and that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits prove nothing, especially in cases like this... Surely it would be more logical to merge it with Sergio Ceccotti, since it was his personal party.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:05, 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! 18:36, 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 Kerosene. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keroselene[edit]

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

I've found a dusty old stub. Keroselene does not appear to be noteworthy by any means, and could possibly be made up to some degree. Searching it shows the word was used to describe petroleum distillate in a smattering of instances in the late 1800's, and was poorly defined on what it was back then. The term has not really been used since. I suspect the term was abanonded once the chemistry of petroleum products were more well understood.

The article has existed as a stub for 13+ years and has a single citation from the 1800's. I wasn't able to find other sources that could expand upon it. As it is, because this term is at best poorly defined and not in use, this page should be deleted. --Tautomers(T C) 18:29, 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 and move to Spouse of the president of Singapore. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First Ladies and Gentlemen of Singapore[edit]

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

Not notable. As mentioned in the article, the "first lady/gentleman" is not a real title. The article's title refers to a title that neither exists in government or is widely used. Even if there is usage for the title, it does not have such significant usage that it would merit the term having its own WP page (WP:NOTADICTIONARY). The article is a directory of spouses of presidents and fails WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 18:23, 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 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! 21:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kartaniya Ghat Alligator Breeding Center[edit]

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

Can not find any sources that dictate the article's notability. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:13, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Davis (news personality)[edit]

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

Résumé-like WP:BLP of a mid-market local television journalist, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for journalists. As always, local television journalists are not "inherently" notable just because a staff profile on the self-published website of their own employer technically verifies that they exist -- they have to be the subject of substantial coverage in sources other than their own employers. But three of the four footnotes here come from her own employer, and the only one that comes from another media outlet is just a human interest interview in which she's answering personal questions about her own perspective in Q&A format, which is not a GNG-assisting source as it represents her speaking about herself rather than being spoken or written about by other people.
There's a claim here that she won a regional Emmy for her journalism, which would be a legitimate notability claim if the article were referenced properly, but is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more than just directly affiliated primary sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 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 keep. ✗plicit 14:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barenis[edit]

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

While there is sourcing to show that there is a place by this name, there is no in-depth coverage. Was sent to draft for improvement, since it has zero current references. I say zero, because the single "reference" is to a map on which this place does not exist. Neither of the two external links mention the town either. Was actually approved at AfC without a single valid reference. Onel5969 TT me 14:52, 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) Garuda3 (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K. T. Thomas (pastor)[edit]

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

Not notable, founder of Indian Pentecostal Church of God Northern Region, small and non notable subsidiary of Indian Pentecostal Church of God. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ 14:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:38, 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 Child advocacy with the option of merging into a future article on Child Advocacy Studies. The argument to draftify isn't strong when nobody has a stated intention of working on a draft; similarly, moving isn't a viable option when nobody has expressed willingness to reframe the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor of Arts in Child Advocacy[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability. No coverage of this bachelor's degree on Google, Google Scholar. Appears that only two universities in the world offers this course, and neither programmes have generated any coverage. I nominated this for deletion as a bundle with a few other pages a while ago, but the nomination failed as the primary article nominated was notable. I am now nominating this article by itself. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 07:00, 13 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! 05:09, 20 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! 04:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist in hopes to get more input here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:35, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Młoda Liga squads[edit]

2016–17 Młoda Liga squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no reason why we need to have a squad listing for this particular season of the Młoda Liga, which is a domestic under-23 youth league. I can see no evidence that this topic has garnered significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. The only source used is the Młoda Liga official website which is clearly and obviously not an independent source. In terms of building an encyclopaedia, such lists serve little purpose, especially when the overwhelming majority of the people listed are non-notable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:22, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaqueras de Bayamón squads[edit]

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

Lacks the significant third party coverage to establish notability. I am not convinced that an exhaustive list of past volleyball squads is an encyclopaedic topic. Article is currently a squad list for one season with one source that does not even verify the topic. I can't see how this would pass WP:GNG or WP:LISTN and, in its current form, it violates WP:V. If this article were not already over 11 years old, I would be looking to move it to draftspace for not being ready for mainspace. I oppose merging as the content is unsourced. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:13, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Big Kidd (Rapper)[edit]

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

No pass of N:MUSIC. Creator will not accept draft space, so we're here. Star Mississippi 13:40, 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. ✗plicit 14:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Angola Women's Handball League squads[edit]

2016 Angola Women's Handball League squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article violates WP:NOR and WP:V as the cited source, the sole reference for the article, does not even confirm the content. I am not able to find anything that does verify the content. More importantly, the topic doesn't seem to meet WP:LISTN as I am unable to find any evidence that there are independent sources discussing these sportspeople as a group. Searching the contents of this article only seems to take us to this Wikipedia article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as far as I can tell the 2016 Angola Men's Handball League squads seems to be of about the same quality when it comes to contents and sources. Should both be deleted/kept? For myself I don't have a strong opinion but they should probably be handled the same way unless there is some deeper difference that I failed to find. BogLogs (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment. As a result, I have put that one in a separate discussion. Since this one has already started, it wouldn't seem right to bundle it so late in the discussion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:02, 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. ✗plicit 14:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Digimon Adventure V-Tamer 01[edit]

Digimon Adventure V-Tamer 01 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable article. It only has one secondary source and the rest are from the own publisher. Xexerss (talk) 12:27, 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 Renaissance (Beyoncé album). czar 17:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All Up in Your Mind[edit]

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

No notability on its own, sources are only album reviews. Sricsi (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:14, 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! 09:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Alves (footballer, born 1993)[edit]

Dani Alves (footballer, born 1993) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately, very difficult to do an effective WP:BEFORE search because of the existence of Dani Alves and Danny (footballer). Using what little we know of this obscure Paris-born Portuguese footballer of this name, I can find nothing better than Mais Futebol and Diário de Notícias, both of which are just squad list mentions, confirming that he was on the bench in a game. This is far from the detailed coverage that WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC both require. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:14, 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! 09:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Egba[edit]

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

Despite playing in professional games, I'm not seeing enough coverage for WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The two current references are textbook examples of trivial mentions. I've searched in ProQuest, Google News, DDG and other places and can't find anything better than Spin, which is just another trivial mention. He is present in Playmaker Stats and some other databases but community consensus is that these don't justify inclusion, see SPORTBASIC for more details. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:08, 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. RL0919 (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IDance[edit]

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

Lack of notability, ineligible for prod due to previous AFD (which is for something different of the same name), sole sources on article are press releases and 'bemanistyle.com', a music game fansite. I was unable to find any reliable sources showing notability to incorporate. Waxworker (talk) 08:00, 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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Error (The Warning album)[edit]

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

Of all the coverage on this list, only four actually mention this album. There's coverage and charting for singles for the albums but they don't name this album or even mention that it's coming. Of the four remaining sources, Live Metal is probably a blog (release announcements and news have no bylines, reviews only ever have the same name), uDiscoverMusic is owned by UMG which also owns both record labels this was released by and shouldn't be used because of that conflict of interest, and the Review Geek and Prelude Press aren't notable publications. Only additional coverage I can find is from the Honey Pop, though perhaps more exists in Spanish-language sources. QuietHere (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary for e very single source in an article to prove that the subject is notable. Some can be used to verify background details. Anyway, I created this article shortly after the album was released and it had gotten some buzz, then that buzz didn't seem to get much further, though this just came in: [11]. I can wait for someone to find reviews that may be out there, and if not we gotta do what we gotta do. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:42, 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! 23:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see no harm in keeping this article, could help the band’s exposure Golden409bus (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I don't think this specific type of argument is listed on Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions (or at least I can't find it) but it definitely should be. Wikipedia isn't here to bring exposure to non-notable subjects. If there isn't already coverage for the subject in question that would justify giving it its own article then we can't just have one anyway on the off-chance that a publication or two sees it and that's somehow what makes them decide they need to cover it. Even assuming that would ever happen (and if you think it will, I can't imagine why), it still goes against basic WP policy. Oh, and there is WP:NOHARM which at least covers the first half of your point, so there's that. QuietHere (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional points: Can significant coverage be attained from only one source? WP:WHYN talks about reliable sources so I'd expect wider coverage for this album to justify a standalone page. Secondly, addressing the point made by User:doomsdayer520 if a nominator thinks that there may or may not be sources in a different language, then a recommendation to delete must be informed by evidence that they don't exist. No. The AfD nomination is based on the article as it stands. The nominator has searched for additional sources, found one, but that also doesn't look particularly reliable. Anyone opposing the deletion has the opportunity to find better sources, add them to the article, point out the changes in this discussion and argue for a reassessment. Also, if one disagrees that the sources cited are unreliable, opposing evidence/arguments can be put forward. If convincing, opinion may change. Rupples (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 07:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am continuing to abstain from voting, but will point out that when some sources in an article are appropriate, then the inappropriate ones can be removed as part of the regular editing process. Also, per WP:ATD the usual process for an album article is to redirect to the band, if the ultimate decision is non-notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, I don't see strong opinions here for either Keeping or Deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 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 no consensus. I see no other possible closure here. Participants are all over the map, Delete, Rename, Keep, Redirect, Merge, Reorient, Turn it into a DAB? There is no consensus here with all of these different suggestions. I hope this discussion doesn't die with this AFD closure and you move it to the article talk page where interested editors can take BOLD action with this article and come up with a mutual proposal you can carry out. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Insectoid[edit]

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

More of a WP:DICTDEF than anything; many of the sources used only briefly mentioned the term and most of the article spends its time discussing trivial pop culture references and aliens. That said, insectoid robots are discussed with some detail in multiple sources, so that might be a valid article, but again, this is definitely not. An anonymous username, not my real name 07:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, I don't think that guideline is ideal for our subject here, but well, split only then. See also sections might be the next-best replacement to disambiguation page to help with navigation. Daranios (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updating my opinion to keep, slightly rephrase and improve, possibly rename, and split out Insectoid robot as another notable topic. I was originally swayed by Spinningspark's reference to WP:ADJECTIVE, but now I've realized that "insectoid" is also a substantive, used in science fiction as a synonym for "Insectoid alien". Which of those is the more WP:COMMONNAME can be decided outside the deletion discussion. As I said, I think that topic is notable, and even if the current article needs a lot of improvement, that can be accomplished through normal editing while preserving some of the current content. The technology section then no longer falls into the purview of this topic, but should be preserved and expanded in a separate article, or possibly combined with Hexapod (robotics). Daranios (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting here though the majority of participating editors are advocating Delete, there are some opinions being argued here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:02, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Seems 2 Funny[edit]

Mikey Seems 2 Funny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tiktokker BLP with lots of references, but they seem to be mostly churnalism or puff-pieces. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:42, 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! 06:44, 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. ✗plicit 14:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K Sendhil Naathan[edit]

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

Businessperson BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks detailed coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:25, 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! 06:27, 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 merge to Dark matter#In popular culture. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dark matter in fiction[edit]

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

90% of the article is the usual "list of media that mention the term dark matter", that fails WP:LISTN, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:IPC. The lead suggests that this could be rescued into a prose article, but all the mentions are checked seem to fail WP:SIGCOV. I checked the usual science-fiction encyclopedias and such, and they don't discuss this with the singular exception of two paragraphs in Stableford's Science fact and science fiction, in his chapter on "matter". Since I don't think that's enough to warrant a stand-alone article, but not a total mess (the lead is ok-ish), thinking about a good WP:PRESERVE/WP:ATD solution, I'd like to recommend merging the lead to Dark_matter#In_popular_culture (a tiny, currently unreferenced section), and redirecting this article there, leaving the WP:NOTTVTROPES-list hidden in the redirect's history. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus - It really needs to be emphasised that edit histories are not intended as a form of shadow database. and WP:PRESERVE/WP:ATD says nothing about using it as such. Wikipedia is not a database. FOARP (talk) 09:34, 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 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! 06:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bootcut Balaraju[edit]

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

Non-notable unreleased film. Sources do not show notability. This user is creating all films related to Syed Sohel even the unnotable ones. The following articles should be deleted for the same reason:

All of the following do not have reliable sources. The last four, though already released, do not have two reliable reviews. The only article worth saving is Cine Mahal if Great Telangana is deemed notable. DareshMohan (talk) 03:40, 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 no consensus. There has been no clear direction throughout this AFD discussion, participants don't seem to know what they want done. No penalty on future AFD discussions but please have a concrete proposal for what you want to happen with an article, closers can't brainstorm on their own solutions, that's when we get taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review for super voting. Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Specialty channel[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG, and checks in WP:BEFORE did not help.

While trying to find sources for 'specialty channel', these are the types of content that I found:

A search result for 'specialty channels' on Google only returned 77,100 results.

The lack of any reliable and significant sources for the topic 'specialty channels' leads to this topic not being notable, and therefore cannot merit for a Wikipedia article.

This article also fails at WP:V and WP:NOR. The claims shown in the article are vague and have no citations. EJPPhilippines (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The claim "about 65% of today's satellite channels are specialty channels" cannot pass WP:V, because when I tried to search this claim, I found no sources that prove it. A claim like this should have a date (e.g. 2022) and a country/region (e.g. Canada) that defines when and where this statement is true, but in this case, there isn't any. EJPPhilippines (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for possible redirect suggestions. An AFD closer can only weigh options that are presented, not come up with our original ideas or edit the article ourselves.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting once more. The recommendation to redirect this page to Specialty service is not a workable solution as that is a page that is just a redirect to this one, Specialty channel. Unless there is a concrete recommendation that can be considered, I'm doing a procedural close with this discussion as no outcome has been put forward.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note for other editors: the above "!vote" includes a number of false WP:PERSONALATTACKS directed against me, which I have been forced to address at another user's talk page but will not cover here as AfD is not the place for this type of discussion (but not because of the "advice" above to essentially just shut up and take it). Modernponderer (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am allowed to comment about your editing history and talk page behavior (which is open for anyone to see if they look at your contributions), and in no way was there a personal attack within. And as for edits you disagree with in article space, you're always free to revert me or upload the image anew if you disagree with said reversion. The image at Télétoon was removed by me as duplicative of other images in the article to fit our WP:FAIRUSE guidelines outside two words and was an English-language logo with English-language text, which is inappropriate to put into a French-Canadian article subject. This might be en.wiki but consideration to an article subject's native language is paramount.. Nate • (chatter) 02:36, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry (2013 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chemistry (2013 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could not find any reliable sources/reviews. The previous AfD was right after the film released and still there are no reviews. DareshMohan (talk) 03:23, 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! 03:23, 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 merge to A-Next#Coal Tiger. Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coal Tiger[edit]

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

Minor comic book character, reception limited to two listicles. I've PRODDED this with "he coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". User:BOZ removed prod suggesting a merge to A-Next, where he is briefly mention, but nobody but us commented at Talk:A-Next, so there is no strong support for merge. Worse, it appears that the name was used for several comic book characters. Our article for example is about T'Chaka II using it, while the only source we have that meets WP:SIGCOV about him (but otherwise seems like an unreliable fanpage), [14], is about T'Challa. Maybe a disambig page would be needed, but if none of his incarnations meet GNG, I am not sure if even that is justified. In either case, I am still not seeing what could be merged to where, given all we have is a plot summary and two low quality listicles ("10 Most Powerful Alternate Versions Of Black Panther", "15 Most Powerful Variants Of Black Panther In Marvel Comics"etc.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:22, 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 Ansible. Daniel (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrawave[edit]

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

Unreferenced plot summary in the poor WP:IPC-violating style (list of media that mention the term ultrawave). The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Declined PROD. Per short discussion on talk, a redirect to Ansible seems like the best WP:PRESERVE option (ping User:TompaDompa), but since the prod decliner (User:Explicit) asked for WP:AFD, here we go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:06, 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 no consensus. Technicality there was a plurality in favour of incubating it in draftspace, but as the author as indicated that they would not work on it further there, that would serve no purpose. – Joe (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Wilt[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a journalist and author, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for journalists and writers. Nine of the 14 footnotes here are not support for notability at all -- five staff directories on the self-published websites of his own past or present employers, two Q&A interviews from podcasts in which he's the speaker and not the subject being spoken about, one piece of his own bylined writing, one glancing namecheck of his existence in a source that isn't about him, and one piece of purely tangential verification of a stray fact that completely fails to even namecheck him in conjunction with it at all. And while the other five footnotes are actually third-party reviews of his books, they all come from minor special-interest magazines that aren't widely distributed or read -- so they'd be acceptable for use if the other nine sources were better than they are, but they don't represent enough coverage to secure passage of GNG on their own if the article is otherwise relying entirely on bad sources.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more coverage about him than this shows. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I almost never write bios, and only wrote this one to remove a redlink from an article I'm working on. So I may well not be familliar with the requirements here (though I did look them up first). I'll go through and explain what I was thinking, and trust I will be told where I'm wrong.
Most of the sources obviously don't establish notability. The staff-directory sources were used only to list publications he had written for (and that he has a journalism degree). While the sources obviously aren't RS, the statements seemed like non-controversial claims of the sort for which policy allows non-independent sources. The Q&As are both rather popourris of topics; they seemed to me to be more about interviewing him than discussing a specific subject, but I cited them only for the fact he's been involved in radio. The glancing mention of him was about the piece of his own writing (which also I cited just because it seemed a useful link to supply the reader with). Obviously neither establishes notability, though both are RS about the event in question, as is the third source that doesn't mention him. Is in necessary that every source in a bio, even the ones for background info or context, mention the human subject of the article?
When I looked up the notability requirements at WP:Author I read that a person is notable if:
"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"
I took this to mean that the existence of multiple RS reviews of books that someone has authored establishes notability of the author. Looking again, I realize that the grammar means that "significant or well-known" is a seperate critereon, but no explicit test for meeting it is given.
I don't recognise the publications which reviewed the books, and many seem to be regional Canadian publications. So they may well be "minor special-interest magazines that aren't widely distributed or read". I was not aware that this matters, if they meet the RS criteria. If it does matter, can this be made explicit in the notability criteria, so I can know for sure if someone is notable before writing a bio about them? HLHJ (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would adding these sources be enough to establish notability?
Laforest, J. (2021). Review of [James Wilt, Do Androids Dream of Electric Cars?
Public Transit in the Age of Google, Uber, and Elon Musk (Toronto: Between the
Lines Press 2020)]. Labour/Le Travail, 87, 203–205.
https://doi.org/10.1353/llt.2021.0012
https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/llt/2021-v87-llt06143/1078658ar.pdf
Do Androids Dream of Electric Cars: Walking dreams of public transit
by Adya Afanou, April 9, 2020
The Charity Report
https://www.thecharityreport.com/literary-circle/walking-dreams-of-public-transit/
Big Alcohol vs. Working Class Joy / James Wilt
2022-09-14
(an interview with the author about his book)
This Is Hell! (broadcast in Chicago on WNUR-FM, thrice weekly[15])
https://player.fm/series/this-is-hell-83405/big-alcohol-vs-working-class-joy-james-wilt
Public Transit in the Age of Google, Uber and Elon Musk
August 4, 2020 - 4:00pm PDT Toronto
"For the Word on the Street festival's fourth City Imagines panel, EFF Special Advisor Cory Doctorow speaks with James Wilt, author of Do Androids Dream of Electric Cars? Public Transit in the Age of Google, Uber, and Elon Musk."
https://www.eff.org/ja/event/public-transit-age-google-uber-and-elon-musk
HLHJ (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Labour/Le Travail journal would be a start, but not in and of itself enough; none of the others help at all, as The Charity Report is not a GNG-worthy media outlet, Q&A interviews in which the topic is speaking about himself in the first person don't help to establish notability, and mere event calendar listings don't help to establish notability.
To help establish notability, a source has to represent third-party analysis and coverage in which James Wilt is the subject being spoken about and analyzed by other people, and notability cannot be established by sources in which he's doing the speaking or sources that just mention his name without substantive analytical content about him (unless said source is verifying that he's been nominated for a major WP:AUTHOR-passing literary award, but that's not in play here.) And we have some flexibility about what kind of sources can be used — like I said, the reviews present in the article now would be fine for use if the other sources were better than they are — but there still needs to be at least some evidence of coverage about him in more prominent media sources, such as daily newspapers or the news divisions of Canada's main television networks. And that has to be coverage about him, not pieces bylined by him, so the fact that he had a byline in The Globe and Mail doesn't help.
The mere fact that his name was present as a red link in another article, further, is not in and of itself a basis for notability — since anybody can wikilink any name or word in any article at any time without regard to whether that represents a topic that would actually pass our inclusion criteria or not, sometimes the most appropriate response to a red link is unlinking it rather than starting a new article. Just because his name appears in another article is not an automatic exemption from his still having to pass Wikipedia's inclusion and sourcing rules. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I thought interviews by third-party new outlets about someone's book or the topic of someone's would probably count a lower than reviews, though they seem to be the form of book review most common on radio and television.
How do I identify a "GNG-worthy media outlet"? Are these limited to "daily newspapers or the news divisions of Canada's main television networks"?
Would another review or two like the Le Travail one establish notability? Or are you saying that no number of reviews of an author's books will make an author notable unless people also write about the author, not just the author's books? WP:author strongly gave me the opposite impression. I'd really like a clear understanding of what the rules are.
I am quite clear that neither the existance of a redlink, nor a non-third-party source used to cite non-controversial content, establishes notability. That isn't specific to bios. It's pretty obvious that a work by him isn't a third-party source for information about him, too. Apologies for taking so much of your time. HLHJ (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more sources to the article, including one with a different political perspective for once. They are a bit monotonous.
On reflection, I think perhaps wp:author's liberal notability standard makes sense; if an author required more than multiple RS reviews of their books to be notable, then we would have a situation in which the author is not notable and the books are, which seems silly and in this case would simply split the article in two and duplicate a small amount of background on the author.
The "News journalism" section still doesn't contain independent, notablity-establishing sources, with the arguable exception of the radio interviews, but the content is also fairly non-controversial, basically characterizing the subject as a journalist; I added it because the article otherwise lacked this fairly basic info. Ignoring that section, the remaining sources (nine book reviews, mostly from smaller leftist publications) seem to me to establish notability.
If I'm wrong, I would very much appreciate corection in enough detail to propose a revision of the WP:author and WP:GNG guidelines to provide better guidance. I've been editing for over a decade and a half, and I don't care deeply about the article, so if I can misunderstand the documentation, a less-experienced editor has no chance, and having an article deleted is a really bad experience for a new editor. HLHJ (talk) 19:58, 22 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! 20:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone for the kind words and helpfulness. To be honest, I'm not that concerned with the fate of this minor article; I'm far more concerned with the WP:Author notability requirements. In some ways I'm actually glad it was nommed promptly, since I wasn't planning on putting more work into it, and have added more RS as a result of the nom. While I realize there are practical considerations, personally I'm fine with being treated with less caution than a new editor with no record of good faith, as I have the knowledge to do better with less guidance and the self-confidence to get the guidance I need.
I judged the subject to be notable, or I wouldn't have wasted my time writing it, and Bearcat, with far more relevant experience, judged it non-notable. I read through some of the other deletion discussions and found articles on authors of much more notable works (works that won awards), which still got deleted because the sources were about the works, not the creator. So it seems Bearcat's view has support from precedent in deletion discussions. But of course I didn't look up precendent when deciding whether to write the article; I looked up the subject-specific notability guidelines. The two don't obviously match, and they should ideally match so clearly than any outraged newbie will, however grudgingly, agree that they match. Please chime in with any options I'm missing, but I think the choices are:
  1. A sole creator of notable works is not automatically notable, and such articles should be spilt into an article for each work, or renamed "Works by X", or whatever the sources do.
  2. A sole creator of notable works is automatically notable, and if they have created more than one notable work and all our content on their works fits comfortably in a single article, it is permissible or preferable, but not mandatory, to have it in one article under the creator's name.
In this case, the first option splits this article in two, and the second leaves it in its current state. For authors with more notable works, option one might split an article into three or more parts. There are cases where the second option might leave us with full-length articles on some of an author's works, and stub-length content on the remaining works, with the stub-bits and summaries of the major works being sections in a single author article. What would be preferable? How would we best edit WP:author to clarify? Should we post to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) andor WT:WPBIO for more opinions? HLHJ (talk) 01:01, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4554[edit]

4554 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). Only one review cited, two are needed. DareshMohan (talk) 00:36, 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! 00:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frishay[edit]

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

Extremely minor company of 16 people that obviously fails WP:NCORP. The refs are profiles/databases, its own website/partners, and minor comparisons in non-RS sites, e.g., the third ref is apparently has 770K creators and states that We strive to build a platform that serves its Creators before anyone else, with no editorial policies, thus it appears to be a questionable user-generated site. All of those obviously fail WP:NCORP. WP:BEFORE found trivial mentions and databases but nothing that is SIGCOV. VickKiang (talk) 00:27, 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! 00:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vattakara[edit]

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

Only one review when two is needed. Both sources are not SIGCOV. No other sources exist except ones in the article. Any online reviews would be under the title வட்டகரா விமர்சனம் (Vattakara review) but all of the ones on the internet are unreliable. DareshMohan (talk) 00:26, 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.
More