< November 13	November 15 >

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sabal Singh Bhati[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was tagged as a CSD G4 but when I looked at the previous version it was different from the current version. However, this version is equally promotional and I don't believe it meets WP:GNG so I'm renominating it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and India. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reporting doing his job, sources given are just confirmation of that. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed, reporter doing their job. (one among many) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the users said above. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references are mostly blatant puff-pieces, most if not all of them not independent sources, and several of them not even substantially about him. They don't even begin to show notability in Wikipedia's sense of the word.JBW (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/171439059/

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/rti-activist-attacked-in-barmer-referred-to-a-hospital-in-jodhpur/articleshow/94905657.cms

just check all of independent sources Dashrath (talk) 17:38, 20 November 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 11:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Singing Lesson[edit]

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

Third and final non-notable article WP:WALLEDGARDEN created by same COI editor. Original pages for composer and composition list closed as a result of AfD delete. Maineartists (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Final article AfD: No significant coverage or review in the media or notable performance. All content generated from primary subject source. WP:Resume Maineartists (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI @Maineartists, you don't have to !vote delete after you make a nomination, since the nom is considered a "delete" vote. I know you did not mean to, but you !voted twice, once with the nom (which also includes in this case) the bolded word delete; then again in your bulleted comment below that. You should strike your second vote. Netherzone (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I did not know this. Maineartists (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for striking the duplicate. BTW, Maineartists It's fine to leave your comment un-struck, esp. because you make valid, policy-based points in it. Netherzone (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Maineartists (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding anything to substantiate the notability of this musical work. The sourcing seems to consist of user-submitted content, and online searching reveals score download-sites, databases, and user-submitted content. Fails GNG. Netherzone (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reviewed, article, did a search, and reviwed :Articles_for_deletion/Matthew_de_Lacey_Davidson Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:00, 15 November 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!} 02:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony No. 1 in 20 keys ("Letter to the World")[edit]

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

Similar to other non-notable articles by COI editor. WP:WALLEDGARDEN Original pages Matthew de Lacey Davidson and List of compositions by Matthew de Lacey Davidson were recently closed as delete Maineartists (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per previous AfD entry: no significant coverage or review in the media or notable performance. All content generated from primary subject source. WP:Resume Maineartists (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero sources for the work, non-notable composer. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Maineartists (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 14 November 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 11:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quartetto dell'Arte[edit]

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

Non-notable. COI created. WP:WALLEDGARDEN Original pages Matthew de Lacey Davidson and List of compositions by Matthew de Lacey Davidson were recently closed as delete. Maineartists (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage or review in the media or notable performance. All content generated from primary subject source. WP:Resume Maineartists (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Maineartists (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same as the other nominations, nothing notable about the composer or the work. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 15 November 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) ––FormalDude (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Museo Benini[edit]

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

I'm embarrassed to see that I accepted this from draft earlier this year, looking at it now I can't imagine why. Benini is not notable enough for an article so it's unlikely that this museum is notable either. Theroadislong (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass WP:SIGCOV. The museum was the subject of a documentary film covered in RS, and the artist and museum have had had significant independent coverage in multiple sources. It's likely both the museum and the artist would pass AFD. However, I do think it would be better to have a single article on the artist which also covered the museum. See the following for examples of significant coverage on the museum and/or the artist: [1], [2], [3], [4] These are just a few sources, but there are others.4meter4 (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I can find a few sources about the museum, I find it odd that the artist himself does not seem notable - I can't find anything about him other than what is on his site and the film. The articles I do find read as promotions and most have copied text from the museum site (including referring to him as an "internationally known artist"). As for the film, I looked at the credits on the film (http://www.muellervideo.com/) and my impression is that it was done "on spec," probably paid for by the artist himself. To be notable an artist needs critical reviews and works in significant museums. That his work is in a museum that he created doesn't really count. The museum isn't mentioned outside of "things to see" kinds of articles in local sources, mostly parroting promotional wording from the museum web site. Lamona (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in Books, Jstor or Gscholar; the museum is not a decade old yet. I suppose it hasn't attracted much critical attention yet. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's a source that does give us more information about the artist and his background - scroll downwards below his image. 1 And here's another one that focuses almost exclusively on the artist and his background. 2 — Maile (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at both of those (they are sources on the article) and they don't convince me. First, they seem to be minor publications with only a local reach. Second, the information in those and on the museum site are worded very similarly with nearly identical information. "... Benini loaded everything he owned into a DC-9, and headed to Evington," "In 1978, Benini charted a DC-9, flew to Palm Beach with all his possessions and bought a home in Evinston," etc. (Notice "Evington" which is a typo - not a good sign.) Both rely heavily on quotes from him about his life, although they aren't actually interviews. I find no scholarly works and no works of a national reach that speak of him. The museum does not seem to have a curator (just Benini and his wife). Museums usually list funders and there is nothing here that says where the funding comes from. I checked in an Art journal database and found this one link which is a 1p reproduction, presumably of one of his art pieces: "New Art Examiner; January 1986, Vol. 13, p18A-18A, 1p". It doesn't seem to be online but in any case one page in all of the art journal index isn't much. My conclusion is that neither he nor his museum seem to be much recognized in the world of art. Lamona (talk) 03:28, 12 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!} 23:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV Bruxton (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Team building. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Group-dynamic game[edit]

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

Sourceless since 2006 סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 20:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Education, Psychology, and Social science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has coverage here, here, and here. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources above are useless for establishing notability. The first is a bank's corporate website, and the second and third give only a brief mention of the term without even bothering to define it, let alone the in-depth treatment that would be required here. Further searching yields similarly skimpy results. It's hard to tell if this is even really a well-defined, accepted term for something, or it's being used generically, or in different ways, or what. If someone feels like they can scrape proper sourcing for a well-defined concept together into an article, that's one thing, but at best, blow it up and start over in that case. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:10, 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!} 23:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Article fails WP:GNG. The three sources above don't show notability, as one is a bank website describing why they're using this type of game while weird grammar throughout ("Companies usually resort to this type of games"?) the next two are trivial mentions. While there's video game notability guidelines there don't seem to be any for other games, so WP:GNG is what applies, and this fails to meet that basic criteria. - Aoidh (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Team building per below. - Aoidh (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Team building. I think that's the concept that this article is reaching for, but is a much more recognized term. I would be reluctant to merge the completely unsourced information Joyous! | Talk 15:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a really good redirect target and makes perfect sense. - Aoidh (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been a ~~victim of~~ a participant in so many team-building exercises that it's very easy to recognize the description. Joyous! | Talk 22:52, 17 November 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. Legoktm (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Metals, Arizona[edit]

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

This "no it isn't a populated place" is an excellent (that is, depressing) example of how failures in the GNIS compilation process combined with mechanical copying on our part to create a junk article. Although the spot in question does show, in some aerials, a nice small street grid with residences, GMaps and any aerial view past the 1990s shows a bunch of foundations, which isn't surprising, because you're looking at the remnants of a major ecological cleanup. The black polygon on the south side of the road is the cap over the place where Rare Metals Corporation mined uranium for about a decade, in the process contaminating the surrounding area, including the houses they built for their workers. All of this is documented, if inadequately, in the Tuba City, Arizona article, and the DoE refers to this as the "Tuba City site". I considered just redirecting this, but for two things: first, it's not terribly clear that people actually called this place "Rare Metals", and (b) there is at least one other Rare Metals mine, this one in Mojave County and, I believe, not owned by the same company. And while there's a lot written about the mining and its cleanup, a lot of that uses it as an example of the wider phenomenon of uranium mining in the area; when all is said and done, expansion of the passage in the Tuba City article is more appropriate than a separate article. I'm open to other resolutions, but as it is I think this needs to be deleted as being innacurate and misleading. Mangoe (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a small company town built by the mill. There are sources that refer to it as Rare Metals, Arizona (the mine in Mohave county is Rare Metals Mine). This refers to it as a place and has photos of Navajo living there after the mine closed. Here it is called a company town and says "For decades Navajo lived in these homes after the mill closed". This is congressional testimony that says "I presently live at Rare Metals..." MB 06:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally am dubious about this as a town, as by all appearances (and IIRC some of the sources) it consisted only of the two sets of houses and no other buildings; it comes across as more of a "company subdivision". I'll also note that the references to it as "Rare Metals" as a town all come after the fact. My inclination at this point is to expand the section in Tuba City on the site and make this a redirect to that section; the problem remains that it is the former mine that was the notable thing, and these few houses are just an adjunct to it. Mangoe (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MB, appears to have been populated. Djflem (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per @MB MurrayGreshler (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one notable WP:NTEMP Bruxton (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NoPort Southport[edit]

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

Unable to find any evidence this campaign/advocacy organization reached N:ORG level of coverage. Considered a merger to North_Carolina_International_Port#Public_and_political_support_versus_opposition, but the target has issues of its own and not sure it would be DUE. Star Mississippi 19:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Transportation, and North Carolina. Star Mississippi 19:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to have been written by multiple SPAs aligned with the subject of the article, and reeks of promo. The North Carolina International Port article is little better. This should not be merged anywhere. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet NCORP criteria (for organizations) for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:32, 21 November 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 Tabletop game. So, as Jontesta suggests, selectively Merge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tabletop game components[edit]

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

fails WP:NLIST; there are no sources at all, much less any that suggest that these are notable as a set. All I can find through searching, other than this page, are tabletop game pieces for sale. ~T P W 18:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 18:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see this as a navigational list--that is, a list to a small set of notable individual items, organized coherently, per WP:CSC item 3. I wouldn't use this for that, but it does appear to be permissible within our rules. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tabletop game; that article is not at all lengthy. BD2412 T 01:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, there's nothing to merge since everything here is unsourced. Anyone can improve the main "Tabletop game" article, but just adding a bare list of objects that may or may not get used, in wildly different types of games, with no context, is probably not the way to do it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or selectively merge. Wikipedia isn't a place for comprehensive lists of components per WP:NOTDIR. The main tabletop game article could use some expansion and some of this may help. Jontesta (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a list of random stuff. Joyous! | Talk 23:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep !votes appear to me to mostly be based in a misconception that the Marché du Film is the same as the Cannes Film Festival, and as such I am giving them lower weight. Stifle (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bailadila (film)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. Not convinced that the nomination for the award listed is enough for notability requirements, which may be why this was tagged for notability earlier in October 2022. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Seeing this page came to know that of course the makers of this movie are not notable, but by reading all its new sources, this movie seems notable and this movie has also won the Cannes Film Festival in Marché du Film Award so I think keep 🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Strike Sockpuppet DonaldD23 talk to me 21:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, it didn't win the award...it was just nominated. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also to clarify further, it wasn't even nominated for an "award" — it was just selected for screening in a program at a film distributors' market, which isn't the same thing at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This film is highly notable as it was in India's top five films for the year 2022 to be sent for Marché du Film Award Under the ‘NFDC Film Bazaar Goes to Cannes’ segment so I believe keeping this article will be a good decision.Khorang 18:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Khorang (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Weak keep - Being nominated for an international award does make a film somewhat notable, though a more significant basic coverage other than the nomination would have been better. Insight 3 (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above mentioned award. Sources here and here. DareshMohan (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor "award", which is not truly an award, but a promotional thing by the Cannes festival. Does not meet either WP:NFILM or WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as film that won an international award along with the significant coverage posted by by User:DareshMohan. This allows it to get slightly past the WP:GNG threshold. Frank Anchor 14:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep shortlisted at Cannes (!). Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. The Cannes Film Market isn't the same thing as the Cannes Film Festival; the festival's awards are notable while the market's "awards" (which aren't really awards at all) are not. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: I stand corrected. I still find it notable enough. And GNG applies. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's quite common for filmmakers to falsely conflate the Cannes Film Market with the Cannes Film Festival so that they can claim in their marketing materials to have won or been nominated for awards at Cannes, but it's deceptive and inaccurate: the Marché du Film is a private sales event for film distributors to look at films they might or might not want to purchase, and does not represent either a public screening or an WP:NFILM-clinching award. So obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it's actually released to the general public and getting reviewed by professional film critics, but simply being selected for a screening lineup at a distributors' market does not constitute an "award nomination" for the purposes of claiming "film notable because award". Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "keep" opinions based on a supposed award are clearly off-base and GNG would need to be met here, but some plausible coverage has been provided; discussion of this would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References do not establish that WP:NFILM is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of video game console emulators[edit]

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

This article just looks like a reworked iteration of List of video game console emulators, only with the licenses added, and a BIOS list which lists the same emulators twice. I don't understand what is going on here. There is nothing to "compare", nor should there be because these programs are entirely different. Delete as duplicative. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 16:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should ask what the intention is before you suggest a deletion. Will add platforms, etc. Chill. --Bawanio (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redundant to List of video game console emulators. There's no reason for a "comparison" they're all wildly different things. It would be like creating a Comparison of vehicles article and listing a sport car, a tractor, an airplane, and a motorscooter. Yeah, sure, they all fall under motor vehicles of sorts, but who's comparing such disparate things? Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I totally disagree with you. That argument is only valid for multi-emulators (which are excluded for that reason). --Bawanio (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your unexplained dissent aside, your current format isn't even much of a "comparison" in the first place. Totally not ready to be published. I'd recommend working on it in the WP:DRAFT space, but once you clean it up to a publishable state, you'd just be left with a list of emulators. (You'll never be able to reliably source things like "emulator bios" - Wikipedia standard usable sources don't discuss things like that. And things that can't be sourced, need to be removed.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Sure, the BIOS section should be removed. And sections like Platform support should be added instead. --Bawanio (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sergecross. This should be incubated in draftspace if you don't want people criticizing a work in progress. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to host something like this. silvia (inquire within) 17:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4: LMAO, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_comparisons --Bawanio (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS silvia (inquire within) 18:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Computing, and Software. silvia (inquire within) 18:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NLIST as I could not find any reliable sources that make any sort of comparison between emulators. There are reliable sources that list such emulators, but as List of video game console emulators is already an article, this particular article seems unnecessary and duplicates what is notable about that article. - Aoidh (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NLIST and WP:OR. Sources aren't making these comparisons and this is otherwise redundant with the other list. Jontesta (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete other than issues pointed out by others above, this kind of article can't be fledged out without WP:SYNTH and doesn't really belong on Wikipedia. Article in its current state provides no useful information, and an entire wiki dedicated to emulation and comparisons exists to do this job. -Vipz (talk) 09:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. A better comparison may be something like Comparison of consoles. Yes they're all consoles but they're very different from each other, especially when comparing consoles from different companies (for example comparing the Nintendo Switch to the Xbox Series X/S or PS5). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf: Draft:Comparison of video game consoles to complement Comparison of handheld game consoles? Comparison sections like [PlayStation#Comparison]] for individual consoles exist. --Bawanio (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NLIST and is redundant to List of video game console emulators. Wikipedia is not a game guide nor a database so this is simply WP:GAMECRUFT. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fortra[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND. References are press-releases, PR and routine coverage. Advert by a now blocked undeclared paid editor. scope_creep^Talk 13:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plenty of coverage, but it's all about business transactions (buying another company, releasing a product). Nothing substantive about the company itself. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP, WP:PROMO, and per nom - spotchecking sources such as the frequently-cited IT Jungle blog shows churnalism of promotional announcements of routine business transactions that provide insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH and fail WP:ORGIND, and results in an article that reads like a press release with extra puffery in the lead that is unsupported by the source. Beccaynr (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Roads Ventures[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. Refs are routine business news for brochure advertisement. scope_creep^Talk 12:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of funding announcements, but that's all there is to be found. Even the Tech Crunch source is a funding announcement. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an unremarkable venture capital firm going about its business; fails WP:NCORP & WP:CORPDEPTH per review of available sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 11:00, 19 November 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. Stifle (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daedalean[edit]

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

NCORP requires more than "coverage" of funding rounds, partnerships, new offices, new executives, joint project, etc. These are all regurgitated PR and announcements. The "AI Prize" is not remotely prestigious enough to establish notability. None of the references contain in-depth "Independent Content" and I'm unable to locate anything that does. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Switzerland. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is a little refbombed but I've looked at every reference and there's nothing that meets NCORP criteria. It would be helpful to keep the discussion focussed on references with emphasis on whether *specific* references meet NCORP criteria or not. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the articles talking about them are about the search for autonomous flight, self flying airplanes. That would be a better target for a redirect, but I don't see that it exists. Delete for lack of sources about the company. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
actually it's both the company and the research organization. sources are enough but don't expect forbes or bloomberg to appear here. Tristana Wors (talk) 07:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is coverage more than founding rounds, joint projects, etc.

Let's take a look at wp:ncorp rule which helps us to estimate which sources are good for evaluating company's notability. Here I copy the essence of the rule:

Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability.
Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
Be completely independent of the article subject.
Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.
An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability.

~~here I list four sources, which go "beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization".~~

https://www.futureflight.aero/news-brief/2022-09-29/daedalean-publishes-roadmap-autonomous-flights-2028

https://www.aerospacetechreview.com/the-future-of-flight-will-be-built-on-safety/

https://www.aviationtoday.com/2022/08/10/former-intel-engineer-daedalean-launch-operations-for-autonomous-avionics/

~~https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/08/07/daedalean-developing-neural-network-future-air-taxi-avionics/ Tristana Wors (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)~~ Sock strike. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Comment You appear to be ignoring WP:ORGIND and the requirement for "Independent Content" which in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. How can you say that an article based entirely from a company announcement or other PR or quotes or interviews meets NCORP when the journalist is merely regurgitating the information that was provided? Point out where in those articles there is a paragraph that meets both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot say that they (articles) are dependent or the journalists were merely regurgitating the information, or using PR announcements. There are many pdf articles with scientific research conducted by and in collaboration with company, so I think we shouldn't say that the website of the organization is the only source for the journalists. Tristana Wors (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

so, if to talk from the opposite: what the dependent content is:

press releases, press kits, or similar public relations materials

any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism),

advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization,
including pieces like "case studies" or "success stories" by Chambers of Commerce, business incubators, consulting firms, etc.

any paid or sponsored articles, posts, and other publications,
including pieces by non-staff "contributors" to Forbes, Huffington Post, Entrepreneur.com, Inc.com, TechCrunch, Medium.com, and other publications that accept public contributions and that do not provide meaningful editorial oversight of the submitted content,

self-published materials, including vanity press,

patents, whether pending or granted,

any material written or published, including websites, by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, directly or indirectly,

other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by itself, or re-printed by other people (for example, self-submitted biographies to Who's Who).
All the sources I provided above are not press releases, churnalism, paid or sponsored, self-published, patent, any non-staff contributors, etc. Tristana Wors (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response Those references are all PR. If you think otherwise, simply point out any in-depth "Independent Content" in the references. Here's my take on them:

This Aerospafce TechReview article is an article about automation in flying aircraft used for war and some quotes have been provided by various companies including the topic company. The article is not about the topic company, does not contain any in-depth information *about* the company and has no "Independent Content" about the company, at all. Fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. So the question to you is, please point out any in-depth Independent Content in this reference.
This Aviation Today" article is a copy of a Press Release. [https://www.airframer.com/news_story.html?release=84567 Here's an article published 6 days previously which is exactly the same - and it is marked as a Press Release. Fails ORGIND.
is type of company profile piece which is a form of camouflaged PR (sometimes referred to as a "puff profile"). It relies *entirely* on information provided by the company. A careful read makes it clear and there is nothing here that is "Independent Content". This article was published on Aug 7 2019 and we can find extremely similar articles in the same style (more puff profiles) in other publications such as Uniting Aviation from May 2019, Vertical from July 20 2019 and AIN online from July 29 2019, all containing the same information with quotes from the CEO, descriptions of the company objectives, upbeat projections, work with EASA and future projections. Fails ORGIND.

Each reference must meet all of NCORP criteria including CORPDEPTH and ORGIND together. Once you remove the information provided by the company, there's not enough "Independent Content" left to qualify for CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources all appear to be industry trade publications; these are usually connected to the source or have relationships within the industry. We'd need coverage from more mainstream publications, for the average Joe not in the industry. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mild keep per comments above both delete and keep, and per GNG and NCORP — some minimum sources are indeed available and not all of them aren't reliable (to my view). Just want to drop here this source [5] which provides some critics, opinion, overview and analysis of the page's subject. 多少战场龙 (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether the sources are reliable but whether they meet NCORP. I've looked at the reference you provided and it relies *entirely* on an interview with the CEO. Which parts of the reference do you think meets "Independent Content" as per ORGIND? HighKing⁺⁺ 18:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage fails to rise above the puff-piece level. XOR'easter (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article by a sockpuppet. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:35, 24 November 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2036 Summer Olympics[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2034 Winter Olympics. No country has even announced a bid. It’s WP:TOOSOON for an article. 160.72.80.50 (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC) - Completed per request on talk page for IP ~ GB fan 12:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to Bids for the 2036 Summer Olympics I'm not sure what the state of the 2034 Winter Olympics article was, but based on the coverage in sources in the 2036 article, there's enough to meet WP:GNG. Looking at the guideline in WP:CRYSTAL, it says If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. With 51 citations I think that qualifies as "well documented." Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Based on the below discussion I'm in agreement with moving the article and structuring it similarly to Bids for the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a sensible discussion about this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2036_Summer_Olympics CT55555 (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete I'm open minded to be persuaded, although comments in the link above don't persuade me, I don't have a strong view. Reasons I lean delete:

I generally don't expect the encycloprdia to contain information about events that did not occur, even if they are likely to occur.
If it were happening tomorrow and we knew where and there was important information about that, I'd say keep. So therefore there is obviously a sliding scale in my head of time and information, but we're not there yet in my opinion.
If there was a meaningful amount of information to convey, I'd be persuaded, but right now we don't even know what country it is happening in. CT55555 (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TOOSOON. I'd wait until we have a bit more information to share, this is just that there's an Olympics happening in 15 or so years from now, in an unknown country. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Host are announced around 12 years before event takes place. Like 2032 olympics is going to take place in Brisbane. Srijan Suryansh (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL, future events should be included if they are notable (which an Olympic Games obviously is) and almost certain to take place (which there is no reason to believe it wouldn’t, given the massive buildup around it and the fact that the 2020 olympics still occurred [albeit delayed] despite a global pandemic). There is already a lot of WP:SIGCOV of the new bidding process and of nations interested in bidding. Frank Anchor 19:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Keep and move to Bids for the 2036 Summer Olympics. ~~That said, a~~Articles on Bids for the Summer Olympics are a thing, and once there are actual bids, this page should follow the format established by past pages such as Bids for the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics, Bids for the 2020 Summer Olympics, etc., and probably be named Bids for the 2036 Summer Olympics. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updated !vote, as Mexico has apparently bid as of October 27, 2022, and there may be others. The page just needs to be renamed and updated. But it also needs to clear, it's focusing on the bidding process, an important topic where more transparency is required. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Move Agreed, the information about bids is being mentioned in secondary sources. One recent event that comes to mind is Indonesia recently giving a speech at the G20 about their intended 2036 Olympics bid. The most relevant information that exists is about Bids and the article should be centered accordingly. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first Summer Olympics whose host city is not known; we must stay caught up with this article as long as there's no confirmed host city. Georgia guy (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Around two years are left for 2024 Paris olympics around which official announcement for 2036 host will be done. So in first quarter of most of bidding nations will announce their potential bids.Srijan Suryansh (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Brisbane has already been awarded the 2032 games and so 2036 is the next available game available. I think this page should be kept as it collects all proposed bids that have been reported in the media. From my knowledge, South Korea, Mexico, and Indonesia have already launched official intentions to host the 2036 edition, so it does not make any sense to delete this page. When the 2036 games are awarded sometime in the near future, all the bids on the page can be moved to a separate page labeled "Bids for 2036 Summer Olympics" as what happened with the 2032 Summer Olympics page. Deleting the page will only cause a loss of important information for people and Wikipedia. User:Yellow alligator 22:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the 1st Summer Olympics whose host city is not known & in the bidding process.Yeungkahchun (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw but move The keep voters convinced me, this should stay, however as it is I feel it is still blatantly misleading. I feel like it should be kept and moved to Bids for the 2036 Summer Olympics, so readers know it is strictly about the bidding and not anything else. 160.72.80.50 (talk) 22:06, 20 November 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 Prey (2009 film). Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Walker (actress)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO per lack of coverage on page and in my search. Could maybe meet WP:NACTOR #1 (though doesn't appear likely) but I'll note a precedent per this AfD that an NACTOR pass may still fail BIO (see Otr500's comment). QuietHere (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Australia. QuietHere (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively see the precedent set here that passing NACTOR is good enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirct to Prey as it appears that is the only significant role in a notable production that she has. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Redirect: The subject might just scrape through with WP:NACTOR, if one counts her role in the movie, Prey, and her recurring roles in Wicked Science and Winners & Losers—but still, it's debatable. However, in terms of sources, I've only found this. There are other articles online which I believe refer to a different actress named Natalie Walker—although I'm happy to be corrected there. I think a Redirect to Prey is a fair outcome, but otherwise, I just don't think there's enough here to justify an article—unless, of course, there are other sources relating to the subject which I've missed. (Please note that I have not taken into account any of the alleged precedents referred to above—mainly because I don't view them as precedents, but merely the opinions of other editors, valid though they may be.) Dflaw4 (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, maybe "precedent" wasn't the right word. I was just moreso wanting to be upfront about my agreeance with that AfD's arguments and closing decision to get across that they should apply here as well so I didn't get a bunch of NACTOR-only keep votes again. QuietHere (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean, QuietHere, and I certainly didn't mean my comment to appear critical. I just wanted to make clear that my vote was not influenced by either of the two AfDs referred to above. I should note, though, that the AfD for Patrick Wilson is currently the subject of a Deletion Review. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I wasn't taking it as critical at all, just felt I should clarify my intent. And thanks for letting me know about that review, I was not informed of it so I guess I'll have to give that a look. QuietHere (talk) 14:00, 10 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!} 09:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing much coverage about her and I'm not even sure her role in the Prey film warranted much critical attention. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 14 November 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!} 06:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aline Chair[edit]

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

Non-notable product page with no sources Jack (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Jack (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No SIGCOV found in secondary sources. Found one mention in this 2016 Frame magazine article about the company, Wilkhahn. Could also redirect to Wilkhahn, but the capital "C" is also incorrect and seems unlikely to be searched for. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:45, 16 November 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 Universal Studios Singapore#Far Far Away. Please follow Merging guidelines at Wikipedia:Merging for acceptable practices to Merge articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Puss in Boots' Giant Journey[edit]

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

Could not find any independent significant coverage of this ride in particular beyond more general coverage of the theme park generally. Fails WP:GNG. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks and Singapore. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Universal Studios Singapore#Far Far Away. I couldn't find sources showing that the ride meets GNG, but since the amusement park itself is definitely notable, the articles should be merged per WP:NOPAGE. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Universal Studios Singapore#Far Far Away - Searches bring up mentions in travel guides to the park and things like that, but there does not appear to be enough coverage for it to pass the WP:GNG on its own. Redirecting to its entry at the main article on the park makes sense, though. Rorshacma (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Universal Studios Singapore#Far Far Away- Content from this page has now been merged. This is my first time merging/redirecting pages, so if I did anything incorrectly then please let me know. If you'd like to edit or revise the information that I merged into Universal Studios Singapore, that would be greatly appreciated as well. SMT153 (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2022 (EST)

SMT153, it was incorrect for you to make major changes to this article while the AFD is still open. For all you know, the final decision could have been to Keep this article or Delete. Please do not do this again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Religious News Service from the Arab World[edit]

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

Based on primary sources. Reason for notability not discernible. Iaintbrdpit (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Iaintbrdpit (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 7 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!} 06:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:22, 16 November 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!} 05:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Tillman, Arizona[edit]

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

The first time I find this showing up on topos, it is labelled "Lower Tillman Trick Tank", with the "tank" itself (a pond) and a single building. The tank is now dry, and the building is a collapsed ruin, and the GNIS name comes from a Forest Service map; I did find one person who drove up to the building (an old log structure) and that's all I could find. Mangoe (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question I am confused by the nomination, you haven't included any wiki-policy why it should be deleted and we normally keep places that exist. Govvy (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it doesn't exist! Google Maps, topo map: no community here. This was mass produced from a faulty database with zero verification that what is stated is accurate or notable. Reywas92^Talk 11:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Had further maps or sources been consulted prior to mass-production, this false article would not have been created in the first place. Reywas92^Talk 11:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence this is more than a building at livestock watering reservoir, mislabeled in GNIS. Note that GNIS has a separate entry on Lower Tillman Tank (the reservoir itself), 300 ft away, classified as a reservoir. MB 14:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infiniti (Medea)[edit]

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

Non-notable brand of media-recording products by a non-notable company. WP:BEFORE can only pull up unrelated or unuseful sources. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, Europe, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:35, 7 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!} 04:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A bare-bones article on a retail brand which was operated by a company which appears to have been dissolved in 2018 [6]. I recall using the product, but am not finding evidence that the brand attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:20, 14 November 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!} 04:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Long Valley, Arizona[edit]

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

The topos show this name next to a "ranger station", and this Forest Service page tends to support that they are one and the same— note especially the text of the sign. My impression from searching is that Long Valley is a large area, and I get no impression that there was ever a settlement in that area with that name. Mangoe (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Long Valley appears to be the name of a topo map quadrangle and a USFS Ranger District (anyplaceamerica.com/directory/az/coconino-county-04005/forests/long-valley-ranger-district-2038547/) and a former work camp that is now a campground ([7]) as well as geographic feature (a valley, GNIS 31262). Per nom, no evidence of any settlement. MB 14:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a populated place and does not meet our guidline for WP:GEOLAND Bruxton (talk) 01:19, 21 November 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. Most of the keep arguments do not help at all in establishing notability. However, there are three unchallenged sources from the most recent argument demonstrating GNG is met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isudan Gadhvi[edit]

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

Non-notable politician, lacking non-trivial support. A number of references do not support statements. Fails both WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. Vanity article. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' Removing this page shows that a man is not a notable person, by joining a notable party, one does not become a notable person not pass WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV 🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC).Blocked sock.— TheWikiholic (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The person is definitely notable. Along with holding positions of Joint-General Secretary and member of the National Executive of AAP, he remains a popular face in Gujarat, which was a fact long before his joining politics.^[1]^[2] Most of Gujarati language sources haven't been added due to unfamiliarity. Krayon95 (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Krayon95 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

References

^ "Meet 5 AAP men leading campaign to end BJP's 27-yr rule in Gujarat". ummid. doi:10.2022/meet-5-aap-men-in-gujarat-who-want-to-unseat-bjp-from-power.html. Retrieved 2022-10-30. The other big face of the AAP in Gujarat is Isudan Gadhvi, a journalist-turned-politician, who has served as editor of one of the leading regional news channels. Having ambitions of becoming a politician, he joined the AAP. Sources in the AAP say he was selected by the party's national leaders because they were looking for a public face, his prime time programme was garnering good TRPs and he had a good number of followers on social media pages.
^ Dey, Abhishek (2022-10-18). "IIT prof, TV anchor, 'one-man army' — who are the men leading AAP campaign in Gujarat & Himachal". ThePrint. Retrieved 2022-10-30. In Gujarat, 40-year-old Gadhvi was a popular face on television news in his role as the editor of VTV News, anchoring a popular show Mahamanthan. He joined the AAP in June 2021 and was soon appointed as the party's national joint-general secretary and eventually given a post in its national executive — the AAP's second highest decision-making body after the 11-member political affairs committee.

Delete: Elected politicians are notable but he is not elected to a Legislative Assembly or National Assembly. Contributor008 (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If he was a popular local journalist, surely there must be sources in the local language. WP:BEFORE needs to be done. 2001:8F8:172B:3A55:50AE:A7FB:882A:142 (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recent developments (^[1]) clearly indicate the notability of the subject. Discussion should be closed and the template should be removed. Krayon95 (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Isudan Gadhvi announced as AAP's CM face in Gujarat". Deccan Herald. 2022-11-04. Retrieved 2022-11-04.

He's the chief ministerial candidate for a major political party in a major state. [KEEP] 160.39.19.84 (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent developments (^[1]) clearly indicate the notability of the subject. Discussion should be closed and the template should be removed. Krayon95 (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Isudan Gadhvi announced as AAP's CM face in Gujarat". Deccan Herald. 2022-11-04. Retrieved 2022-11-04.

Krayon95, AFD discussions last at least 7 days. Please do not remove the AFD tag on the article, it will be removed by the discussion closer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject has been declared as the chief minister candidate from the Aam Aadmi Party for the purposes of Gujarat election. That makes the person quite notable.

Appu (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being the chief ministerial candidate of a political party is not a WP:NPOL pass. Political parties can declare anyone as their candidate. Pls read WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL TheWikiholic (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is the face of Chief Minister of Aam Aadmi Party in Gujarat Election 2022. D 🐕 B 🦇K🐞 (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC) blocked sock.— TheWikiholic (talk) 11:38, 6 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!} 08:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability: @Liz, @TheWikiholic. As mentioned, Gadhvi was established as a notable journalist and media personality long before he joined AAP in 2021. He was already a known face in Gujarat due to his show as all the sources suggest. This Afd should have been resolved sooner. Krayon95 (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being the chief ministerial candidate does not pass NPOL as @TheWikiholic had stated above. AAP Himachal CM face Surjeet Singh Thakur's Wikipedia page was deleted due to unnotability. I don't see how Gadhvi is more notable than him besides also being CM face. He also does not seem to have a chance of winning, as most opinion polls put AAP as getting below 20 seats. Ok123l (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I fail to understand why this deletion comes up every few days. The person is notable enough to have a wikipedia page, certainly not less than several others. Why bring this up again? Seems to me like people are bringing their politics to Wikipedia. 160.39.19.84 (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subject seems notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia page. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 05:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The position he currently has ~~and the position he stands to possibly gain both~~ do not meet WP:NPOL. There appears to be a decent amount of press coverage but it's not about him, it's about his recent appointment to being a candidate, which is routine coverage. I did find 2 sources that may have counted towards GNG [8][9] but I doubt that same coverage would have been given to him were he not in his position which, as I've already said, isn't NPOL meeting. So, delete. —Sirdog (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Sirdog. "position he stands to possibly gain" = Chief Minister of Gujarat.

"position he currently has" = major leader of a political party (AAP) in a state, other being Gopal Italia.

"2 sources that may have counted towards GNG" = both these and many other sources are before his nomination as CM candidate. Krayon95 (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have refactored my statement as according to NPOL the chief minister position would be sufficient, so I appreciate the correction there. However, the position he currently has is insufficient and another editor has brought up concerns that he has been polled to lose. Even if he were polled to be winning, this would be a WP:TOOSOON situation. My 2 sources I mention above being published prior to his appointment is not relevant, my intent for bringing them up was that after searching for sourcing (with my search not being limited to a specific timeframe) those were the only two I found that might have had some merit. —Sirdog (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sixth line of Wikipedia:Notability (politics)#Politicians, The person was nominated by a major political party for a contest at the national level is notable but Isudan Gadhvi was nominated for a contest at state level not at national level. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Worth noting further that the relevant page has not yet been accepted and the specific line regarding a contest at the national level has been contested on the article talk page. —Sirdog (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NOPOL, as was established to Hindi and Tamil Wikipedia.Antonyvlas (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. —Sirdog (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Sirdog, @TheWikiholic. The article was created months before the nomination as CM candidate. The subject merits a wiki article alone based on the basic criteria to establish notability of "significant press coverage" which he received in nationwide news and print media. Along with that, being known as a major political leader of a party in a state (Indian states often comprising of around 100million people), irrespective of what the polls estimates, there should be a wiki article, just as there is for Gopal Italia (no elected position). Furthermore, he was a known public figure even during his career as a journalist and as the head of a major Gujarati news channel VTV-Gujarati. In this scenario, we can compare with other known journalists such as Rohit Sardana (almost all the sources are post his demise), etc. This repetitive Afd might seem like a exercise of political biases on Wikipedia. Krayon95 (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No doubt needs clean-up, but passes the GNG; sigcov, reliable sourcing clearly available (eg BBC Hindi, The Print, The Hindu). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:04, 18 November 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ein Ofarim killings[edit]

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

There is very little evidence of WP:SUSTAINED or significant coverage, aside from the initial news report and some subsequent trivial mentions, so this does not appear to be an event with a strong claim to notability. The aftermath section of the page also appears to engage in WP:SYNTH drawing a connection to events the next day (an attack on a Jordanian police station) that the source cited for the very same makes no attempt to connect. As an alternative to deletion, the details that ARE supported could be merged into Palestinian Fedayeen insurgency. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Terrorism. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, which seems sensible to me, though I don't know much about the subject ... it's only on my watchlist due to long-term vandalism. Graham87 15:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Reprisal operations (Israel). It is already present there as one sentence "Operation Gulliver (מבצע גוליבר) – Carried out on 13 September 1956 in Jordan", which can be expanded with one or two extra sentences to completely cover it. Incidentally, most of the article content does not appear in the single source. I'll add another source which can be copied over if the merge happens. Zero^talk 02:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have another source that links it to the events of the 13th that would be useful, because as it stands there's simply nothing tying the two together. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: Yes, Morris explicitly connects the two. Zero^talk 04:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this was a 1956 terrorist attack and the sources already in the article include ones from 1993 and 2002, which shows that there is, in fact, sustained interest. Google book shows numerous other sources in 2008[10], 2004[11], the incident is mentioned in Moshe Dayan's 1966 memoir[12] and in David Ben-Gurion's 1963 history of Israel[13]. Jahaza (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The latter two mentions are textbook trivial mentions. The 2008 and 2004 ones are only borderline something more if you include the aftermath, which they do tie together with the attack - though in theory both speak more to reprisal op in the aftermath, one 'Operation Garandal' (same as Gulliver?), than they do to the attack itself - both lending more to the suggestion by Zero if anything. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be one thing if all we had were trivial mentions, but these references in important books show the sustained attention to the fact that the event took place and its consequences. The facts of the situation were well known and didn't need to be repeated, but the repeated mentions in important sources show its influence. Meanwhile, you're ignoring the fact that even many of the more extensive mentions come from decades after the event.

There's no reason to merge the event into its reprisal, that's illogical unless the scale of the reprisal is vastly different than the scale of the initial attack. Note also that Operation Gulliver, the somewhat suitable reprisal merge target, doesn't even exist yet. It's completely confusing to merge it into a list of reprisal attacks and would result in tossing out almost everything that's in the article.

If the article must be merged somewhere, the target that actually exists that makes sense is List_of_attacks_against_Israeli_civilians_before_1967, where it is mentioned, but there's no reason to merge something that is sourced and the subject of sustained coverage. Jahaza (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RE: the merge option - don't lose cite of the fact that the body of material here is incredibly small, and from the look of things, unlikely to expand given that no source seems to dedicate more than a few sentences to these events. As it stands, the page is short and already overlaps with two other pages, and these are both potential reasons to merge (WP:MERGEREASON). Iskandar323 (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the continuous interest in this attack, it is clear that there are no grounds for this AfD. gidonb (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(I !voted merge above and maintain that view.) Those who want the article kept under the present name should explain why the murder of three Druze workers by fedayeen is more notable than the revenge murder of 11–15 uninvolved Jordanians by a national army. Zero^talk 05:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support a merger into Reprisal operations (Israel) per the suggestion above - possibly more relevant there than at my page suggestion. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It could also be listed independently at List of attacks against Israeli civilians before 1967, but lists are a bit of a supplementary resource to pages. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant terrorist attack, has coverage, no good reason to delete. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant attack indeed. Good coverage. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 14:46, 17 November 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!} 04:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Little Spring, Arizona[edit]

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

The aerials say that this is a smallish property which currently consists of a residence, a barn, and a shed, but before the 1980s had a different set of buildings and a corral. That's all I can find out about the place, as searching produces mountains of clickbait and false hits, especially the supposed etymology of the name of the state. I found nothing of substance that I could link to this specific site. Mangoe (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This does not satisfy WP:GEOLAND and searching comes up with nothing that could indicate GNG. —Sirdog (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNIS ID 31128 ([14]) is for an actual spring by this name, approximately 800 feet away (one of 4 actual springs in Coconino County with that name). According to the County property database, the area is a 60-acre single-owner parcel with a 1300sqft house and another 600sqft building. MB 14:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to not satisfy WP:GEOLAND Bruxton (talk) 01:21, 21 November 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. Stifle (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Garibaldian Antifascist Partisan Movement of Italy[edit]

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

Virtually unknown regional party and barely mentioned in a few sources, which scored in 1946 an ephemeral result (0.19%) in the only Naples constituency. It was just one of the many lists that participated in the Italian elections of 1946, but definitely does not meet WP:GNG. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject, quite valuable information that would be lost. --Checco (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco: Even in this case: why notable? Not for its electoral result: it scored just 0.0% of the vote in 1946. The article must be evaluated for the available sources (and I see only a few mentions about it), while I don't honestly see any "valuable information that would be lost" on this article.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is not enough supporting material out there for an independent article on the Garibaldian Antifascist Partisan Movement. On the contrary, there is quite enough material for the creator and leader of the party, Sante Garibaldi. An article in the English-language Wikipedia about him is overdue, as one can see perusing the lemma in the French and Italian Wikipedias. The information about the party belongs in a section there. -The Gnome (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whilst the party was electorally marginal, . The party folded well before internet and google, but would have had a certain degree of notability in contemporary press records. And as shown by Voci e volti della democrazia: cultura e impegno civile da Gobetti a Bauer there is also in-depth coverage of the party, spanning several pages. In the absence of an article on Sante Garibaldi, a deletion of this article would eliminate the key factoid presented herein. --Soman (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You suggest to keep this text because if we had internet back in the day the party existed then we would have had "a certain degree of notability". I'm sorry but this is an argument that has no basis in policy at all. Then, you state that the article's subject "represents a phenomenon of antifascist and nationalist articulation in the immediate post-war era". That may be so but where are the sources to back that up? We are not here to educate people politically. And Wikipedia is all about sources. It is not a historical website, nor a icollection of obscure information. -The Gnome (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One factoid isn't enough for notability. No sourcing is an issue here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 04:34, 7 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!} 03:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Sourcing is insufficient to meet WP:NORG. The name could be a useful redirect, however unfortunately I could not find a suitable target. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:32, 24 November 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 Sabiha Sumar. I found the Delete arguments more persuasive and decided on a Redirect as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mi Raqsam[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, a video (ref 1) and routine cast listing and two paragraph database like entry (ref 2) are insufficient to pass WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE found trivial mentions, 1, 2, 3, 4 failing the SIGCOV requirements. VickKiang (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 14:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- The series is a popular TV show having adequate information and references to be published as an article. Subject is also available on IMDb, adding to the notability of the series. Lillyput4455 (talk), 21:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Hey Lillyput4455, sorry but per WP:IMDB IMDb is not a reliable source, and popularity isn't synonymous with notability. As the creator of the article, which two or three of the refs do you think are reliable, independent, secondary, and constitutes of significant coverage? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Sabiha Sumar, since that's what most of the sourcing covers. Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show this passes GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Subject is a popular and notable series from 2012, and is still remembered for its strong story line and cast. Moreover, it incites adequate sources, therefore, should stay, If article sources won't be about its director, then what else can be the source? 9 November 2022, 8:52 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.88.44.131 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nominator's rationale is sound here, this does not pass GNG. Searching myself brings up no useable sources. —Sirdog (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Article is about a popular show aired back in 2012. Have enough sources to stay on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.42.100 (talk) 10:50, 20 November 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 seem to be more keep than delete votes but a plurality of delete votes exists (bias admitted) and neither side is spammy or bad faith in their arguments. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of athletes from Chicago[edit]

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

There is not much information in this list that merits a stand-alone article/list. It has no real purpose aside from containing links to athletes' articles who are from Chicago. I cannot easily find an equivalent article/list for any other major cities or metropolitan areas. A similar collection of links can be found in another Category: Category:Sportspeople from Chicago. StarScream1007 ►Talk 02:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This could make sense as a category, but there's no benefit to having this as a list article. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seriously? First, there are lists of athletes and others from cities, often embedded in "notable persons from city x" lists. For example in List of people from Detroit, and List of people from Denver, and List of people from Bangalore, and List of people from Quebec. And not just athletes, but other groups. For example, List of hip hop musicians from New York City, and New Yorkers in journalism, and List of LGBT people from New York City. Lmk if you need more examples. And otherstuffexists is not a counterargument - because this is not the only reason this should be kept. And third, of course, where lists are long, it is our policy to consider splitting the lists into smaller pages. Chicago is a big city, with a long list, and that makes sense. These city lists will only get longer in time (unless some vandal starts deleting names without good reason-always a possibility, as we have our share of those). And it will therefore make sense for more of these "notable persons from city x" lists to be split. The rationale for having lists of sportspeople from place x? It's the same as that for the dozens of lists of sportspeople from country x. As in Category:Lists of sportspeople by nationality. Or sportspeople from a state. As in List of athletes from Alaska, and List of athletes from Maryland A – M, and List of sports-related people from Mississippi, and List of athletes from Montana. Lastly, as far as the immediately above comment is concerned, it is well settled that "makes sense as a category, but not as a list" arguments are not valid. Because the two, though covering similar terrain, offer different information. This is discussed directly in WP:NOTDUPE. Obviously, the information in this list, for example, is not set forth completely in a category. 2603:7000:2143:8500:1CC8:B0E7:6B:CDF5 (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. There are literally hundreds/thousands even, of athletes connected to one of America's biggest cities. A category is sufficient, and as the nominator says, there aren't many other examples of such lists for other cities. Ajf773 (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as wildly indiscriminate Dronebogus (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the idea of a category but, there is no reason for it to be an article. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Lists of "People from ..." have repeatedly survived consensus debates and they proliferate both Wikipedia pages and as stand-alone articles (where longer lists merit their own article) per MOS:LIST. There have also been multiple RFC efforts to ban them outright, all of which failed to gain consensus. The most recent discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists involves a lengthy discussion about "Should List of people from place require blue links?", showing a united consensus of editors discussing how to make these lists better...not delete them.

The only debate I see here that doesn't violate MOS is if this list should be merged with List of people from Chicago or kept as a stand-alone. I again refer to MOS sub-article on Stand Alone Lists WP:SALAT "When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link." Which is what I did here in relation to List of people From Chicago and List of athletes from Chicago. Finally, lists and categories are not mutually exclusive. They serve different purposes. This list is simply unfinished (a stub of sorts) that lacks a good intro. If you want a good example of what this list (or the greater List of people from Chicago) should look like, I refer you to what I did with List of people from Park Ridge, Illinois. I encourage you all to review the MOS on lists and work to improve them instead of trying to delete them. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dkriegls. Valid, reasonably sized subdivision of a very large list. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously, as a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. If a list is so broad as to require subdivision in totally arbitrary ways, then it wasn't a valid list to begin with. And believe you me, this particular method of subdivision is totally arbitrary. You could have just as well done by state (which would have been better, although still not worth keeping, since at least that way you don't end up with microlists of people from a small town with a single entry). But you could have also divided by sport instead of birthplace. Or by birth year. ~~Or by closest radio station or something~~. In fact, there isn't even a clear parent list. Is it "list of athletes" or "list of people from Chicago"? Both of those are way too broad for a list with no natural way to subdivide. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:41, 9 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!} 03:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list is restricted to notable athletes from Chicago as it says in its first sentence. It is a navigational list of articles in Wikipedia as provided for in WP:CSC and it can very well exist alongside the corresponding Category:Sportspeople from Chicago as the Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates guideline suggests. There is relevent information in the list that cannot be contained in a category. It is arguable that unreferenced entries in the list should be removed although I would not support doing so and it would not be a reason for deleting the entire list. This list exists fully within our guidelines and, if these guidelines are unsatisfactory, we should seek to change them not just try to delete target articles. Thincat (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't a navigational list. It's an arbitrary intersection of two properties that have nothing to do with each other: "athlete" and "born in Chicago". There are millions of categories, and it's inappropriate to have a list article duplicating every single one of them. This is even a bad category. It highlights the broken way in which categorization is done on Wikipedia, with multiple arbitrary intersections of non-WP:DEFINING categories. But frankly, the category wonks are off in their own little enclave, and trying to make any inroads there is probably pretty futile. But not here...here we can make a stand. This list just is not going to help anyone find any encyclopedic information. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... but I'm not suggesting that every list is appropriate. I think that this one is. On a happier (or unhappier?) note I entirely agree with you that the denizens of WP:CFD, by looking down the telescope from the wrong end, have produced a practically unusable system, one best ignored. Thincat (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Dkriegls and Thincat alluded to above, navigational lists with notable entries usually fall within Wikipedia's guidelines and are kept. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to satisfy WP:NLIST Bruxton (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Ingram[edit]

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

She is only really known for one event, as per WP:ONEVENT. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--seems like a pretty clear-cut case of 1E. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Human Rights in Australia. Oaktree b (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator is correct—this is a pretty clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. While Ella Ingram clearly played a major role in an event, I don't believe that redirection is appropriate (as proposed above) because there is no specific article based on the incident to which we could redirect this article. MJ94 (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be WP:ONEVENT. Can't find any coverage about Ingram outside of the insurance case. Samsmachado (talk) 19:02, 15 November 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.