< October 24	October 26 >

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Rajaraman[edit]

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

Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years and never been updates. Low citation count, h-index. Fails WP:NPROF, WP:SIGCOV. Very slim claim to notability. scope_creep^Talk 23:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I got this far but was unable to take it any further. Nothing more recent that I'm able to find either. Star Mississippi 23:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Keep per the below info. Star Mississippi 13:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that as well. Just a passing mention. Nothing of significance. scope_creep^Talk 00:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, India, and California. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat)^talk _contribs (he/they) 02:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. EDIT: Keep. Is an h-index of 30 and 4000+ citations on Scopus low for this field? I could answer this question myself, but he has 740 coauthors and Scopus will only list 150 of them in an exportable format, so the only way to analyze his citation profile in comparison to his coauthors' is to go to each paper and look at each author, which is extremely time-consuming. HEP/cosmology stuff tends to get a lot of citations due to having tons of collaborators, so 30 may indeed by low for his field, although 7 of his top 10 papers, ranging from 102 to 533 citations, have fewer than 5 coauthors. JoelleJay (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JoelleJay: Can you please post the url. There is two scientists both with the same name. scope_creep^Talk 08:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57204257601 JoelleJay (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it might be I've got the wrong scientist. I see how Afd unfolds with more knowledgeable folk taking a look. 08:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs)

Comment. Where's the low citation count? GS has top papers 1039,563,545,431,355 (several with only short author lists), which is not my definition of low. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Because we work at the same university I should probably refrain from a formal opinion even though I don't think we've met or communicated. So I'll just add a couple of clarifications instead. His top-cited papers appear to have alphabetical coauthors so I don't think we can infer anything from author order. The article needs an update: according to his department profile he is full professor, not associate. And he appears to be the incoming chair of the faculty senate [1] but that doesn't count for much with respect to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw that profile on him either as a full professor. I think as a full professor at a major university, he is past the post. Nomination Withdrawn. scope_creep^Talk 05:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of cricket grounds in Pakistan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Club Ground[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, I'm unable to find any results in a general internet, Google Scholar, and Google Books search; searching for the title given on the Urdu page only returns Wikipedia pages and mirrors, which seems like a red flag. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Cricket, and Pakistan. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are mentions in at least two sources: Dawn and Tribune. Although neither deal with the ground in depth they are clearly about the ground and the club that operates it rather than simply passing mentions. On the whole I would suggest a redirect to List of cricket grounds in Pakistan is a better option to deleting here - that way if we find sources we can work on the article with a preserved history and attribution. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of cricket grounds in Pakistan. It is definitely a first-class venue but it's unlikely that the article will be expanded in the near future so best to apply WP:ATD until someone can work on it. BoJó | talk UTC 09:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of cricket grounds in Pakistan. Even Cricinfo can't give any more detail than it does exist and is in Islamabad. OliveYouBean (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment the above redirect proposals seem good to me. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of cricket grounds in Pakistan as per other commenters, there doesn't seem to be enough here for a GNG pass, which is what we tend to see when it relates to certain Pakistani cricket related articles, but there is a suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:57, 26 October 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!} 22:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arsh Anwer Shaikh[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, nothing better than trivial coverage in secondary sources, barely even meets the old NFOOTY standard so there's little reason to believe there's additional coverage out there. I was unable to find additional coverage searching online. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and India. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, may have scraped through on the old guidelines alright but nothing showing up of any significance Josey Wales^Parley 22:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient in-depth sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 00:00, 1 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!} 22:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of children of prime ministers of the United Kingdom[edit]

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

I think this page should be deleted for many reasons. It is just an indiscriminate list of information, children (and grandchildren in particular!) of Prime Ministers hold no power, or official position as such, it reads like a who's who.

Most if not all of the living individuals are 'private individuals' who do not seek any particular fame.

Also, the article is almost entirely unsourced. JeffUK (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sources consist of (a) an apparently broken link and (b) a vague link to the deprecated ThePeerage.com (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Self-published peerage websites). To the extent that a child of a prime minister is a notable person, they are sure to be mentioned in the article about their parent already. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat)^talk _contribs (he/they) 02:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear BLP concerns for named children who aren't notable. LibStar (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this worth keeping if we limit it to those who are notable, cf. List of children of clergy? (I'm undecided, as well as undecided whether that page should exist, but it's at least better.) 3mi1y (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The difference, on face value, is the Children of Clergy article requires not only that entrants are notable, but that they are notable in a large part BECAUSE they are children on clergy, I doubt many children of PMs would meet that test. As an aside, I don't think that many entries on the children of clergy list actually meet that test either, but that's a separate conversation. JeffUK (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Borgias, Cesare and Lucretia, are notorious (in part) for being the children of a pope, so there's some hope for that list. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (Also List of children of clergy needs a thorough vetting. What does Nikola Tesla being the son of a priest have to do with his fame, as a non-believer, no less?) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous comments. This simply isn't encyclopaedic, and more than that, as mentioned it might well give undue prominence to people (especially those who are still under 18) who might well specifically want to avoid such coverage if at all possible (or indeed, if they are too young, their parents might). This belongs in a trivia book (if there) and has no bearing on practically anything that any of the prime ministers did. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would agree with the comments raised by other editors. I also think if anyone wanted information as to whether Prime Ministers had had children and they had done anything notable they would look at that Prime Minister's article, not a list of them all. Dunarc (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I also share the BLP concerns raised by other editors. Edge3 (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a non notable intersection, doubtless created in good faith. BLP issues exist. Johnson, for example appears to have e no idea how many children he has. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 11:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion. I am especially hesitant to vote in favor of keeping articles about living children who are otherwise not notable. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 1 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Impler family[edit]

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

Did a before search for the Impler Family, and didn't come up with any sources that establishes this "family" as notable. Also, notable members section doesn't have any sources for it. If sources do come to light on this, please ping me, and if it rises to the leve of WP:GNG, I'll withdraw. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 15:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're not a genealogy software, remember? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move. The Impler family is the source of the name of Implerstraße station about which we have an article and the actual Implerstraße, about which we don't yet. The state-run (and as yet very incomplete) Historisches Lexikon Bayerns has an article about the Munich Patrician families in general[2], which mentions in passing the Impler family as one of the patrician families. The article we have could reasonably be moved to "Hans Impler" as well. The Impler family and Hans Impler in particular get mentioned by sources on Bavarian history with sustained attention over several centuries.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Jahaza (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply- I looked at these sources you have above, Jahaza, and it appears as though these are passing mentions of one person or another, with very little in depth coverage that would go toward an article for the family. I can actually agree with your point of moving this article to "Hans Impler." If you find more sources, please let me know. Thanks! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 12:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose as an article on Johann Impler, who appears to be of minor notability. the article appears to be an exact dictionary translation of one in the German WP, whose standards are reputed to be higher than those of the English WP. An entry in a Bavarian biographic should be enough to indicate notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 9 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!} 20:46, 11 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!} 22:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep or I also agree repurpose as an article on Johann Impler per User:Peterkingiron. Taung Tan (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)' change to Delete ' as source not found. (not vote) Taung Tan (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and repurpose as an article on Johann Impler per Peterkingiron.4meter4 (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Johann Impler was a councilman and was tortured and beheaded by the rebels during the civil uprising in 1385, as they held him to be partly responsible for the high tax burden (Impler uprising)." appears in DeWiki and also Munchenwiki, is happily mirrored in the city history of Munich but there is no source for this information that I could find in German. Searching Bavaricon, the Bavarian archive, merely gets passing genealogical mentions of the existence of various Implers, including mention of a 1376 church provost Johann Impler. That fact of 1376 Johann's existence is in fact the only thing confirmed by the only source cited in DeWiki for the Impler family article. Munchenwiki's article about Implerstrasse and indeed Implerplatz repeats the information but its only reference is to booking website hotel-mix.de. So quite apart from the very real concerns regarding the notability of all Implers (the DeWiki article not passing WP:GNG standards), we also have totally unverified information on Johann Impler gently spawning across Germany. Even if it were verified, it'd still be very scant ground for notability. Do we really want to repurpose a GNG-failing article about a family to a completely unsourced assertion about an individual? Because I, for one, can only see the spectre of WP:CIRCULAR here... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might be an ancient hoax/legend, but it's described in a number of German sources. It's not at all based on the hotel web site. Jahaza (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. And a question, how exactly does an AFD closer "repurpose" article under a deletion discussion? That sounds like an editing job. I also don't see how a repurpose overcomes the arguments for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source cited is a dead link. Only two members of this family are listed here, one of whom is described as "Franz Impler, son of Hans Impler, a residential house owner in Munich and benefactor". If the most notable thing one can say about a person is that he owned a house, I'm just going to have to allude to the words of Shania Twain. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has one source, can't find anything about this that would be notable. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The three page article in a German book on heraldry here is footnoted, which suggests other sources in German likely exist. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Above editors, pls check the source provided by User:Ficaia. Taung Tan (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taung Tan, yeah I took a look at the source, and couldn't make much sense of it... but maybe I'm missing something. I figured to let the closer figure out what it is and see if it can go toward a keep result, but I wouldn't think so. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 20:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the very source I quoted above - "That fact of 1376 Johann's existence is in fact the only thing confirmed by the only source cited in DeWiki for the Impler family article." I added some helpful bold this time around. The source has zero value, carries no suggestion that there may be more sources and I did take some care above to document the search for those sources and report accurately on the lack of them. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The source has zero value, carries no suggestion that there may be more sources"

It literally has footnotes in it referring to the de:Monumenta Boica. That's not a suggestion that there are other sources, it's an explicit statement that there are. Jahaza (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Monumenta Boica is huge. It's also hard to tell quite what's going on in there as my Latin's pretty rusty. It's a reference to the possibility that there may be mentions of a family name in an enormous archive consisting of 54 volumes and 65 sub-volumes that would take a professional archivist weeks if not months to parse. Be my guest - it tells us a family name exists, not that it is in any way notable or, indeed, that anything that may be attributed to this source without some very precise pointers - is in any way verifiable within reason. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to complain about a source, fine. But don't write "no suggestion that there may be more sources" when the thing literally has citations to other sources. Why would you do that? Jahaza (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that footnote and never did. I'm not complaining - I'm pointing out that the source is not reasonably verifiable and there is no claim of notability to be inferred from its existence. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is still my philosophy that 12-century historical families that are documented by one reliable source are notable. Should not judge on 12-century issue. Taung Tan (talk) 06:07, 3 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 Circumcision controversies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Day of Genital Autonomy[edit]

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

Article clearly does not meet the criteria of WP: GNG. The only references that I could find about the subject online were self-published and/or facebook sources. The only articles or published academic works I could find that mention it were brief, non-significant coverage on p. 304 of Contending with Antisemitism in a Rapidly Changing Political Climate and p. 458 of Judenbilder in der deutschen Beschneidungskontroverse. Other, self-published information about the subject is non-existent. Additionally appears to be a promotional and WP: Activism page. KlayCax (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There seems to be enough German-language coverage, as cited in the article, for me to lean on the side of caution and say it probably meets WP:GNG even if the margin is slim. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 20:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I agree with @ThadeusOfNazereth:. Since it is a stub article, I think it would be better to merge it with the main article Circumcision controversies as a sub-section. GenoV84 (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (Note: original vote was ~~keep~~, see here) I wonder why highly reputable sources like the German Deutschlandfunk, Deutsche Welle, Die Welt, and the Jüdische Allgemeine are not seen as reputable. The movement started in Germany and is already supported by organizations and intactivists in at least 20 countries worldwide after 10 years.^[1] Ulf Dunkel (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for notability isn't a "reliable source mentions it". But rather if the subject is independently notable in of itself. A source called "IntactWiki" and a 1000 follower Facebook page clearly does not meet that criteria. Wikipedia isn't a place for WP: Activism or a place to advertise movements. It's a place to chronicle notable subjects. KlayCax (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deutschlandfunk, Deutsche Welle, Die Welt all mention it in the context of passing mentions. These (and tabloid-like "see this man doing Y") clearly do not meet the criteria of notability. See:: Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band. Seeing as how the only notable information about it is "it occurs on X date" — and a brief other trivial pieces of information — it's clearly strong delete/merge.

There's no reason that this information needs to be artifically WP: Fork'ed into a one sentence article. KlayCax (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I took a look at KlayCax's many edits in the Circumcision article, which tend to be pro-circumcision of children (quoting the proven circumfetishist Brian Morris, belittling Brit Shalom, etc.). Also, the WWDOGA's correct description of being against circumcision without medical indication in children was reworded by KlayCax into a blanket "anti-circumcision" movement, which is factually incorrect. Therefore, I have the impression that the attempt to delete the small article about the WWDOGA is not about formal aspects of the article, but about reducing the worldwide intactivism and thus the protection of children's human rights in favor of the medically not indicated foreskin amputation in children. Maybe we have a WP:COI here. Ulf Dunkel (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Ulf Dunkel:. You're misunderstanding my position on a lot of this stuff.

I'm absolutely, resolutely not in favor of routine circumcision. (As a urologist: I wouldn't circumcise any future hypothetical son of mine and would personally recommend to parents not to.) Nor have my edits represented any sort of pro-circumcision bias. The reason a lot of these articles surrounding the topic were revised were due to widespread WP: NPOV problems that don't fit in line with the goals of Wikipedia. (Such as falsely asserting that individuals who are suffer from widespread sexual dysfunction; the Canadian Urologist Association goes into a lot of these debunked claims here, which I recommend you check out.) I personally agree with your assertation that circumcision has no significant prophylactic (assuming that safe sexual practices + other guidelines are followed) benefit in developed nations. However, there's no evidence that the procedure is harmful either in terms of long-term sexual pleasure of function, and no mainstream medical organization (and arguably scientist) who would hold to that view today. (See WP: Fringe) Circumcision can still be unethical: even with that fact being the case.

This isn't a place to get into a debate about it. However, I wanted to clarify my beliefs, since you brought it up as an aspect of concern.

As for your other statements: quoting the proven circumfetishist Brian Morris That's explicitly the opposite of what I've written about his usage in the article. I stated that links from him should only be used when surveying incidence and prevalence. As I wrote about him: Biologist and pro-routine circumcision activist whose metastudies conclusions have been widely disputed. (e.g. "The benefits to risk ratio exceeds 100 to 1" for starters) Possible NPOV issues in his conclusions and WP: Fringe. Many of his current citations within the article could be replaced with citations from major, reputable medical sources. belittling Brit Shalom It doesn't meet WP: GNG. It has nothing to do with "approving" or "disapproving" it. As one of the supporters behind it, Eli Ungar-Sargon stated, in 2011: "calling it a marginal phenomenon would be generous". The subject could easily be merged into Brit Milah. Wikipedia has a normative policy against unnecessary WP: Fork's.

Therefore, I have the impression that the attempt to delete the small article about the WWDOGA is not about formal aspects of the article, about reducing the worldwide intactivism and thus the protection of children's human rights in favor of the medically not indicated foreskin amputation in children If you're stating that the article is an WP: Activism page. That's exactly an argument about why it shouldn't be kept. As mentioned before, these claims are false. Wikipedia isn't a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Promoting obscure events and then promoting them on Wikipedia because they might become hypothetically big or to use it as WP: Activism isn't how the process of article creation is supposed to work. I was in a band in high school. I really liked to be in it. It was somewhat popular on Youtube. However, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Same thing applies to this. KlayCax (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I did try and remove the references to Morris in the article (outside of prevalence figures.) But it was reverted by @Alexbrn:; it was clear that a consensus would not have formed surrounding the matter. As an editor, I can't overrule consensus/other editors without a RfC. That's not how Wikipedia works.

Naming a worldwide human rights event which has already reached its 10th year of repetition as "obscure" shows that you're constantly trying to diminish the work of human rights activists, @KlayCaxx. You are of course allowed to stay behind any anonymity which makes it hard to figure out why you are biased here. But your edits on circumcision related WP articles speak for themselves. There are many other events listed on the WP which have their own articles but they don't seem to be more relevant than this event. This WWDOGA article on WP doesn't promote the event but simply describes it like many other event articles do, e.g. the World Kidney Day, listed in the Category:Health awareness days. There have been numerous attempts to diminish the human rights violation which is done to boys by forcing a medically not indicated "circumcision" aka foreskin amputation aka genital mutilation on them. I clearly see this request to delete this article as such an attempt. The IntactiWiki describes this Wikipedia bias on circumcision. Ulf Dunkel (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which has already reached its 10th year of repetition as "obscure" The length of an event is irrelevant to the criteria of WP: GNG. If that was the case, a multitude of local events would meet the criteria. Naming a worldwide human rights event Again, Wikipedia articles aren't for WP: Activism or WP:SOAPBOX'ing. It's a place to chronicle notable subjects. You seem to be under the impression that one of the websites goals is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which isn't the case. (Also see WP:TEND) You are of course allowed to stay behind any anonymity which makes it hard to figure out why you are biased here. But your edits on circumcision related WP articles speak for themselves. I'm unsure why you're personally attacking/falsely alleging things against me. But none of what you have claimed so far is accurate. (For just the Morris claim, see here.)shows that you're constantly trying to diminish the work of human rights activists. How does merging this article do any of this? All it stated at the time of AfD was the following. It's not like a merger would hide or delete any piece of information. The IntactiWiki describes this Wikipedia bias on circumcision What does this have to do with the AfD? KlayCax (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You initiated an AfD (deletion) and now you're talking about merging. I can agree to merging the article into another one. And I am so tired discussing the idea that human rights violations might just be opinions. Your statements about the pros and cons of circumcision are irrelevant insofar as the topic of the WWDOGA is about medically not indicated genital mutilation of children of all sexes and genders which is illegal as a matter of law, covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and no topic for further discussion. Furthermore, no medical organization worldwide recommends medically not indicated circumcision on minors. - But if you really have no pro-circumcision bias, I appreciate that and beg your pardon. Ulf Dunkel (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. Holding an opinion on something isn't inherently a conflict-of-interest. It's entirely possible to be a focused editor and still evaluate sources reasonably, and Klay's analysis seems entirely reasonable, even if we disagree. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 19:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Worldwide Day of Genital Autonomy: Supporters". IntactiWiki. Retrieved 2022-10-13.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, seems to be a debate between Keeping and Merging
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ref stacking tells me this isn't notable. Only seems to be brief mentions in the sources given. Oaktree b (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MissbrauchsOpfer Gegen InternetSperren, which is the organization that promotes this. This does not appear to be a notable event, the coverage in reliable sources consists of only passing mentions, whereas the more extensive coverage is by non-notable advocacy organizations who are probably not reliable sources, but it certainly deserves a mention on the organization article, which it does not currently have. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still torn between Keep and Merge but now more than one Merge target has been proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fringe protest by a fringe group. This not a comment on the content or advocacy, but rather that it's not a notable program, due to lack of significant coverage, despite its weasel word language. (A thorough search of Wikipedia user pages would discover why I endorse the idea, but not the article.) In 2002, everyone worldwide knows that we are not Facebook or Twitter. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 1 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio Japonés Auxiliar de Quito[edit]

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

Article subject does not meet WP:GNG, weak references Anon.Miller (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Japan, and Ecuador. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although small, the school has some coverage by local news outlets, seen here and here and in Japanese media here. It will take some digging, but I believe we can expand this article. PokeRegi5 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If the "エクアドル＝キト補習授業校が入学式＝今年から聴講生増やす" article discusses how the student body is increasing as a trend (and not as routine news) it should absolutely count for notability. Also I can see if there are Ecuadorians willing to look at Spanish language outlets about this school. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 11 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!} 20:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ODD. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 1 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alethea AI[edit]

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

AI NFT company. See WP:NCRYPTO - the sourcing in this article is to deprecated media, YouTube etc. The company fails WP:NCORP. "When establishing the notability of cryptocurrencies and other blockchain-related projects, the consensus is that crypto-centric news organizations—such as Coindesk or Bitcoin Magazine—generally cannot be used, as they do not provide coverage that can be considered "independent" from their subject for the purposes of WP:ORGCRITE. The notability of such projects must therefore be established on the basis of other sources, such as mainstream reliable news sources." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- seems to be not notable and without any reliable sources --Filmmaniac Tomik (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Seems to be legit for wikipedia. However I'm not sure. --Filmmaniac Tomik (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 09:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more crypto fluff. Sources are blogs/non-RS websites, or passing mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The relevant guideline is WP:ORGCRIT. Disregarding the routine funding annoucenemtns, press releases, and cryptoblogs, there are in-depth references in VentureBeat, Fast Company, Bloomberg, and a few others. While it likely is receiving press because of Mark Cuban, it is still receiving press which meets ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article was created after some research on references and it is not based on small time references only. Real coverage is present which already satisfies Wikipedia criteria of notability. --Cisugeb (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Easily passes WP:ORGCRIT/WP:SIGCOV with the significant coverage from the sources currently cited in the article. David Gerard has done an excellent job of removing all of the Wikipedia:Citation overkill which existed at the time of nomination and leaving the quality references in the article.4meter4 (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reviewed the article after clean up; Bloomberg is pay-walled, so I can't tell how useful it is. The other two sites I'm not familiar with, they seem ok? Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to Bloomberg and the piece is good - it's about 'Mark Cuban-Backed Firm Alethea' sure enough. That both the BB and Fast Company article are about 'Mark Cuban-Backed Firm Alethea' is a little company statementy, but the content is pretty routine - Alethea "has already had some commercial success, selling one intelligent NFT, or iNFT, for $478,000 via Sotheby’s in June." and "has closed a $16 million strategic private and restricted token sale where the lead purchasers were Metapurse". So these are funding/intent announcements of a very early stage company in a very speculative field. Fast Company cites exactly the same "One of these NFTs, called “Alice,” already sold for $478,000 on Sotheby’s Natively Digital market in June." and "Cuban, along with Metapurse, Crypto.com Capital, Multicoin, Dapper Labs, and others participated in a private sale of crypto tokens in Alethea that generated $16 million." So the two pieces have to be considered tantamount to company statements. Despite the existence of sources, I still have concerns about NCORP standards of notability - in particular WP:SERIESA. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found that if you remove the part of the Bloomberg link after the "?" then you can read the entire article. And it isn't good (for the purposes of establishing notability). The article has no "Independent Content" (as per ORGIND) in the form of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. It reports that it sold one NFT via Sotheby's (and shows a tweet from Sotheby's), summarises their funding (nothing original there), and then a bunch of quotes from company execs and an upbeat view of NFTs in general. It also fails CORPDEPTH as there is no in-depth information on the company here, just summarising other news. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", 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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria. The Bloomberg piece summarises existing news and produces quotes from company execs, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. The Korea IT Times is specifically about the work produced by Robert Alice in collaboration with the topic company and includes general information on how an iNFT can be made seem "intelligent" through the use of GPT-3. It has no in-depth information about the company which is what is required seeing as this topic is the company, not the artwork, fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. The FastCompany article also relies on information provided by the company and the journalist describes how "Noah's Ark" site imbues an NFT with a "soul". It does not provide any in-depth nor significant "Independent Content" about the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Finally, the TechInAsia article is very like the Bloomberg article (and only 2 days apart) in that it mentions the Sotheby's sale, summarises the company funding includes a quote from the company exec. It also has no in-depth significant "Independent Content", fails CORPDEPTH and ORDING. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not enough to cite sources, we need to use those sources to explain to readers why this topic is encyclopedically significant. The point is not to prove that this project exists in the vaguest possible terms, our goal is to write a neutral encyclopedia article about it. Right now, the article merely regurgitates a bunch of pathetically generic cryptocurrency buzzwords. It is not clear what this company actually does, nor why anyone should care. Notability cannot even be evaluated until these sources are properly summarized. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 22 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!} 22:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not indicated by the sourcing per HighKing. We need to exercise extreme caution with crypto-related enterprises, and the tone and scope of the provided articles do not come close to convincing me. Ovinus (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies) and WP:SIGCOV. If, outside of articles in the insular trade websites and insider newsletters, there's been a single news article about a crypto thing, then it's not notable. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 1 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 Practical theology. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theology of relational care[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

In 2013, this article was proposed for deletion and no consensus was reached. I'd like to re-open that discussion. Instead of simply deleting it, I think we ought to redirect this page to Practical theology, where there exists a comment on this particular topic. Although "relational care" in the general sense of "extending care through personal relationships" is an abstractly important idea, this article does not name a discrete concept or set of practices that is notable in itself. The phrase "theology of relational care" does not occur with any frequency in the popular or scholarly conversation. (A search for the phrase on the ATLA Religion Database, the most prominent database of scholarly literature on religion, returns zero results; and a search for the phrase on Google returns nothing but a few passing mentions.) Brian (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further specifics: the ATLA Religion Database returns no hits for the full phrase; it returns three hits (with a few derivatives) for the broader phrase, "relational care." Of those three sources, one book and one article are plausibly concerned with a "theology of relational care," but have nothing clear to do with each another; the third is a book that doesn't deal with theology at all. Another book using the phrase pops up on Amazon that also doesn't deal with theology. The one place the full phrase appears in a non-trivial way is in a masters thesis, which is a decent source, but not enough to secure the clarity or notability of the concept. A Google search for the phrase turns up very nearly nothing—just some spam websites and a couple of trivial mentions.Brian (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support the re-direct to Practical Theology.Swampyank (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There doesn't seem to be enough to back this up as a significant topic of theological discussion under this name. I don't think there's enough even to justify a redirect. Jahaza (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Practical theology. Superficially, Pastoral theology sounds as if it would have been an appropriate merge target, but that is entirely a Catholic article, whereas the subject here ought not to be denominationally focused. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ a couple more sentences to the mention at Practical theology and then redirect. Not enough content and coverage for a standalone article imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC) Changing to Redirect as the selective merge has taken place Atlantic306 (talk) 16:21, 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!} 22:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have integrated a few sentences from the theology of relational care article into the pastoral theology article. Atlantic306, does that suffice to make your recommendation a redirect? —Brian (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I now support redirect, Atlantic306 (talk) 16:21, 26 October 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!} 22:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Egy-Tech Engineering[edit]

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

Borderline A7, but has existed for a long time. No indication of notabilty, neither a BEFORE nor the Arabic article identify sourcing to make a case for N:CORP. Star Mississippi 17:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Egypt. Star Mississippi 17:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found another source from 2017 ^[1] that suggests they build a prototype but also says "The car, however, is yet to roam the streets of Egypt, as it awaits permission from authorities. But the vehicle’s creators are confident of soon eliminating elements which hinder the official launching the vehicle."2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:B962:E243:E9D5:AA9D (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.egyptindependent.com/new-egyptian-made-smart-car-could-soon-replace-the-tuk-tuk/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. If there's been a single reliable source, that does not count as significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 1 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Ida Thornton[edit]

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

Self-styled 'Jean Queen', a statement placed in press via interviews, releases and company statements. This article is a (declared, to be fair) paid placement and shows it - sourcing is purely to non-RS (HuffPo, blogs etc), to company statements and interviews. If an announcement that you've bought a hotel with your husband in 'The Caterer' is your best shot at RS, you're in trouble. It's not good enough to pass WP:GNG and needs to go, pronto. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, United Arab Emirates, and Australia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Huffington Post is a RS (although I tend to avoid it purely because they closed the Canadian version right after they unionized...), but what's used for the article here is a contributor's bio. British Vogue is either her giving an interview or used as a "taking head/subject matter expert" in an article about jeans. She seems to have a ton of coverage, but nothing found for GNG, yet. I feel like it's there, somewhere. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been through 18 pages of Google search and all it has is fashion advice on how to wear jeans or leather after 50 or similar vapid articles. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC, search results are not all "fashion advice on how to wear jeans or leather after 50 or similar vapid articles", and notability is not based on subjective preference. There are sources over time that support her notability, e.g. Donna Ida's New Direction (Vogue, 2017, interview with secondary context), Interview, Fashion: Donna Ida Thornton (The Scotsman, 2017, includes secondary context, including career and biographical info), She Wears It Well: Jean genie Donna Ida Thornton on how to make denim work for every occasion (The Telegraph, 2017, includes secondary commentary about her), Is The Low-Rise Jean Back? (British Vogue, 2014, includes secondary context related to her collection), Into the fray: jeans and the no-hem-hemline (Guardian, 2016, quoted for opinion), How to wear leggings the grownup way (Guardian, 2015, quoted for opinion). Beccaynr (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Marginal, but agree with Beccaynr that the page passes WP:BASIC. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 00:16, 22 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!} 22:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like it or not, she is an expert on jeans and wearing jeans. There are enough articles with her advice on wearing jeans to meet WP:GNG. There is also enough coverage of the changes in her brand over time to meet the (WP:BASIC) notability requirements of Wikipedia. ~~~~
- Somehow the signature was lost there. Let me try again DaffodilOcean (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccanyr. Deus et lex (talk) 11:22, 31 October 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!} 22:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Namrita Malla[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Sources are all about photos of herself, with minimal biographical information; I wouldn't consider them significant coverage. Ovinus (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and India. Ovinus (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 18 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!} 22:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sexy photos and she discusses bathing suits and the like, typical tabloid stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - besides, as noted above, failing WP:SIGCOV, she has acted in exactly one marginally notable film. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 1 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 Weather of 2022. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022 Paysandú Derecho[edit]

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

Not a derecho. A derecho is a extremely long tracked storm event, not an event to hit a single city. Both references seem to have been cited as if they were in English, but they are both in Spanish and google translated versions of both references do not mention “derecho” ever. As it is not a derecho, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NWEATHER needs to be discussed as it may not be notable for a stand-alone article, but rather a section only in Weather of 2022. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Uruguay. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do specific squalls have their own wikipedia articles? That's what I wanna know here. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I’m aware of. Outside the United States is a different story, but squall lines are extremely common in the United States, so there hasn’t really been a need to create an article for a list of squall lines. Based on the references, it looks like the event itself has notability for a decent mention in the Weather of 2022 timeline, but that is probably about it. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to know. I'm learning. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 02:28, 19 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!} 22:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, or merge as suggested. They lived. If this were an airline accident, or a crime, it would be speedily deleted. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 1 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slowcoaster[edit]

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

Very little evidence of significance let alone notability. The few sources that can still be found are local and do not convey notability. Several sources are dead and could not be traced in the internet archive. New searches found nothing that had not already been listed. Article was created in 2006 by an SPA which also gives concern about COI. Fails WP:BAND by a very wide margin Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 18:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, surprisingly. Since the strongest notability claims here (ECMAs, rotation on Much Music) are almost 20 years old, I ran a ProQuest search since 20-year-old sourcing wouldn't be expected to Google well, and found considerably more quality in-depth coverage of them than I was expecting for a band I've never personally heard of. Gimme an hour or two to fix the article, and Bob'll be your uncle. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did the dirty deed. Article now cites 14 sources, from a variety of media outlets not at all limited to Cape Breton Island or even Nova Scotia. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article has been improved with the addition of multiple reliable sources coverage references Atlantic306 (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements by Bearcat. Suonii180 (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources and additions (courtesy of Bearcat). Band clearly meets GNG (and GNG is basically just rehashed in NBAND 1). Samsmachado (talk) 02:20, 1 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!} 08:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corentin Lemaire[edit]

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

Article about amateur footballer (although he previously played 16 minutes of a Coupe de France match) which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online English and France-language coverage is trivial, such as interviews with the subject, transfer announcements and entries in statistical databases. PROD was contested without providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. Skynxnex (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG IMO, see article here.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's an interview with the subject of this article, and there is literally zero independent commentary that could count towards meeting the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. I don't see anything wrong with the interview - but it's not enough on its own. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:54, 20 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!} 22:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. BilletsMauves^€500 19:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure Q&A interviews obviously do not contribute to GNG, and nothing else is turning up on a search. JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 27 October 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 substantiveness of the provided sources has been convincingly refuted. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Matore[edit]

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

Article about former footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online English and Polish-language coverage is trivial, such as transfer/firing announcements and entries in statistical databases. PROD was contested without providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Zimbabwe. Skynxnex (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG IMO with articles such as this, and and this.
I'm afraid the first link is an interview from his former employer (not typically viewed as independent of the subject) and the second is a just a single name-drop (the only thing the article says about him is that he played for Radomiak Radom in 1995 - that's it). Neither counts towards meeting the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Gol24 source good, but not sufficient on its own. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he has a quite prolonged career in management. Though being assistant to Joey Antipas, Matore has got attention for managing Chicken Inn to its first league title and subsequently being signed to coach in the far more wealthy South African league. News coverage include both significant and passing mentions which is a lot to dig through. This is one of the better ones. Geschichte (talk) 14:56, 23 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!} 22:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the B-Metro source is slightly better than the usual crud offered (Q&A interview from the guy's own team, a single namedrop), it's entirely on either the coaching pair (or trio) or the club itself, there is nothing independent whatsoever that is directly about Matore. JoelleJay (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Geschichte and other users. I found 4 amount many many more spurces. In addition, he deifiently has additional offline coverage, having been a international capped player with extensive fully pro Polish tip flight and Zimbabwe top flight career in 1990s-early 2000s. Clearly is significant figure in Zimbabwean football in management and playing career with ongoing coach career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That article has one sentence on Matore, the rest of it is direct quotes from him from what is clearly a press conference and a couple sentences on the team with no mention of Matore. As has been explained to you at least a dozen times, such sources do not contribute to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 21:22, 29 October 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. Arguing to keep based on sources that may come into existence in the future is weak. If such sources are written, the article can always be recreated. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Oved[edit]

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

Lawyer, fails WP:GNG; WP:NORG, WP:NOTCV. Routine coverage of cases, article is very much a CV and there is no notability in sources or elsewhere. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Business, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Mr. Oved had a wikipedia page before the Hans Niemann lawsuit, then probably it should be KEEP just on the basis that it's a weak page but not offensively so.

If this page was created in anticipation or in the shadow of the Niemann lawsuit (this is a world-wide news story arising from the world of professional chess), then DELETE. The person does not appear to be of any significance, and should not be using Wikipedia in such an opportunistic manner. Jdxcrow (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "lawyer to the stars" isn't a reason to have an article, most are name drops or just cases he's worked on. I'd expect a lawyer to win cases, nothing terribly notable about any of them. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Various WP:RS mention that he certainly meets WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Check his list of highly notable clients: Cat Cora, Alex Sapir (the son of Tamir Sapir), Tiësto and Rebecca Minkoff, Zinedine Zidane, Christian Vieri, Paolo Maldini, and Andriy Shevchenko, and they are not quite non-notable cases that were not won. Clearly a notable attorney who has enough notability for Wikipedia. Snowseven (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment having clients is what lawyers do. We need to see why these cases are notable or he's just another joe doing his job. Oaktree b (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note Oved is now a major player in a large lawsuit as part of the Carlsen-Niemann controversy, which may result in an increase in the number of sources that mention him. Whether those sources provide SIGCOV remains to be seen. AviationFreak💬 13:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Current sources are weak, but that seems to be changing. Another Q is whether this should be an article about the person(s) or the firm. – SJ + 05:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the page does seem to be a SPA promoting the subject.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - first, substantively, he's just not notable as a lawyer; see User:Bearian/Standards#Non-notability. He's been a licensed lawyer for less time than me. He's represented lots of notable (albeit not famous) people. I don't list all my notable clients, but if you wish, I'd be glad to drop some names, with clients' permission of course. Representing notable people or organizations, or suing notable businesses, does not make a lawyer automatically notable by extension. Secondly, I am strongly opposed to autobiographies on Wikipedia. In 2007, that could have been excused, but in 2022, it's untenable to try to sneak in a social media page masquerading as an encyclopedia article. To be blunt, it's theft of our services, and mis-use of a charity's resources. Thirdly, the combination of the two would be in violation of several rules of professional ethics. Tagging DGG. Destroy any remnant of the article and ban all the users who contributed to this mess. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 1 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!} 22:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Steup[edit]

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

As it stands now, it looks like a link farm filled resume. A check of sources does not show indication of passing General Notability Guidelines or WP:NBIO and this subject seems to be more or less a run of the mill general populace. A steady pageview average of under about five views per day for the past seven years suggests the lack of notability even though view count is not a specific guideline criteria. Graywalls (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, and Oregon. Graywalls (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A7 and G11 (the article seems like it mostly exists as a resume and list of external links). Having worked for a notable employer doesn't establish notability on its own and the article makes no other claims its subject is notable. I found absolutely no online coverage of this specific John Steup besides socials (Twitter, Linkedin) and content mirrors. No news mentions I could find. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or speedy delete per policy) for violating WP:NOTRESUME and WP:NOTPROMOTION, while making no statement of notability either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 19:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I feel like I must repeat myself: first, substantively, he's just not notable; music executives are dime a dozen. Secondly, I am strongly opposed to autobiographies on Wikipedia. In 2007, that could have been excused, but in 2022, it's untenable to try to sneak in a social media page masquerading as an encyclopedia article. To be blunt, it's theft of our services. Tagging DGG. Salt, burn, TNT, ban, etc. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Wikipedia is not a resume service. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:41, 1 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josie Aiello[edit]

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

Falls short of WP:ENT, no sigcov found. At most, found in passing mention. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This article, being on WP for more than seven years, was having no problems at all, until ~~the above editor came along (Broadway biased obviously, and most likely following my edits of today)~~. So keep it then. Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not previously know you edited this article today, and above is a personal attack of which I've stricken out. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks, InvadingInvader (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appologies if you think that was an attack, but at the same time, that was an attack on me, in accordance to the rest of what I stated above. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFD nominations aren't personal attacks nor are they intended to be. Read Help:My article got nominated for deletion!, and focus more so on the article rather than the nomination. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You got it! Now, you do the same, no more attacks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while her site isn't usable, any leads on the Billboard article she references on her site? That could help with GNG as she doesn't currently appear to meet N:MUSIC as it's currently written. Star Mississippi 00:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: Okay, since I like you as a person, go ahead and have it deleted then. I saved what I wanted from it on my page. No hard feelings. Have a nice night! Best, --Discographer (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Discographer. Sorry, I should be more clear. There's a route to potential notability via GNG/WP:BIO. I can't find the Billboard article, which is why I haven't cast a vote in either direction, but we have time to find it. Alternatively, I'm happy to move this to your draft space if you want to work on it. I think N:MUSIC has changed since you wrote this, I don't at all think you spent time writing about someone you didn't think was notable. Star Mississippi 01:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi:, Thanks, it's okay though, I probably wouldn't be getting back to it anyway. Her claim to fame are her songs from the 1987 U.S. version of the Starlight Express concept album, that's pretty much it. Thanks anyway though. Best, --Discographer (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article does seem to have potential...see WP:HEY. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree there's potential. That's why I wanted to find the Billboard article. If you feel so as nominator, this doesn't need to run seven days and you can withdraw it @InvadingInvader Star Mississippi 21:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see if editors think that this should be returned to draftspace or improved in main space. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Personally I think the benefits of draftifying a seven year old article are slim. It can either be improved in mainspace, or will likely just expire in six months. Based on what @Cielquiparle has added, my opinion is that improvement in mainspace will be sufficiently productive. But that's just me as an editor, not as an admin. Star Mississippi 00:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok done now. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. Expanded with several independent, reliable sources and layered in details from existing ones, but in terms of SIGCOV, would point to the 1978 Chicago Tribune feature ("Josie Aiello gives diners a side order of Streisand") and the 2000 Los Angeles Times pop scene column which gave her three paragraphs in the "Out and About" section and said she had a "Richter scale voice". Cielquiparle (talk) 10:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:BASIC - there is secondary context and commentary about her career in independent and reliable coverage over time. Beccaynr (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HEY. No objections to it. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 1 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) BangJan1999 16:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Cheng[edit]

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

Does not appear meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. BangJan1999 20:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Canada. BangJan1999 20:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's true that the article was created in an inadequate form — basically "Lily Cheng is a city councillor who exists, the end" — by an occasional editor who's made less than 100 Wikipedia edits in the entire last six years combined, but it is entirely improvable. Toronto is a global city whose city councillors are considered to pass WP:NPOL #2 as long as there's some actual substance and proper reliable sourcing in the article, and sourcing does exist to upgrade it with. With just 20 minutes of work on it, I've already upgraded it significantly. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per MOS:Canada#Municipal politics members of Toronto City Council are automatically considered notable by virtue of position.

"City councillors are deemed notable just for being city councillors only in "major metropolitan cities"; in the Canadian context, present consensus has applied this only to Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal." —WildComet ^talk 02:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and Bearcat showing it can be an article. Skynxnex (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks a lot better than before, therefor I'll withdraw my nomination. BangJan1999 16:41, 26 October 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Divine (group)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. There is only one source listed and it is questionable. Riftynush (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:BAND #1, 2, and 3. Coverage of the group in Stereogum and Billboard and elsewhere (see Lately_(Divine_song)#Reception).-KH-1 (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KH-1. WP:BAND criterion #2 requires only that an artist have "had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Divine passes this test with flying colors; they had a #1 single on the Billboard Hot 100, the main music chart in the U.S. And that single was certified platinum, too, which exceeds criterion #3: "Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see WP:BIGNUMBER. Who’s to say that having a #1 hit on a chart automatically makes you notable. Per WP:GNG, a subject requires MULTIPLE sources, and this has just one. And since it has just one, this article must be deleted unless someone finds at least one other source before this discussion expires. Riftynush (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although no real objection if artist/album articles are merged. Coverage appears in Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, Billboard, The Boston Globe, Journal Star, etc. Caro7200 (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As mentioned, meets WP:BAND. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily meets NBAND. One-hit wonder. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 1 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 Sahg. Discarding the "keep" votes which aren't policy-based. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 21:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Born Demon[edit]

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

Album that fails WP:NALBUM UtherSRG (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it's a good article about an album that represents doom metal. Usually these albums do not chart or are as notable as pop music. ? User:Chavitico (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Chavitico (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Usually, albums that don't meet WP:NALBUM, such as this one, are WP:BLARed towards the article about the performer. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...And no, the claim that "Usually these albums do not chart or are as notable as pop music." is misleading as any pop music album article should be WP:BLARed or deleted if it has similar notability issues as this article. WP:NALBUM doesn't discriminate by genre. Steel1943 (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Well, I'd give the article a chance. If it were that extreme, then all of this band's albums would have to be deleted because "they're not noteworthy or they don't chart." It's an underground Norwegian band, it has a small audience but it exists! This album is a sample of his work, obviously. --Apega71 (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITEXISTS. Richard3120 (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like WP:BEANS to me, in addition to wondering if the band's article Sahg should be investigated per WP:NBAND. Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  From my understanding though, the band's article would probably pass WP:NBAND since the band includes/included notable members who are notable for other ventures. Steel1943 (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sahg per WP:NALBUM as a ((R from album)). Nothing proven this far shows this subject to be notable. Wikipedia isn't the doom metal or Sahg Fandom/Wikia site: Notability requirements here are for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sahg - per myself, Sam_Sailor and Onel5969 - all of whom have previously redirected the article as an alternative to deletion. Alternatively, given the quality of the Sahg article and its current clear failure of WP:GNG, I'd delete the lot. BTW, the concept that "the band includes/included notable members who are notable for other ventures" is specifically dealt with in guidelines - notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Sahg, WP:NBAND point 6 seems to contradict the WP:NOTINHERITED claim, so I'd imagine there's room for debate there. Either way though, I do agree that it would be difficult to present a case to rationalize the existence of an article about a band with no notable songs or albums, regardless who is in the band. Steel1943 (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the band article would probably just about pass notability – they appear to have been mentioned in various Norwegian newspapers, although as they are all behind a paywall I can't tell if they are just passing mentions. And their albums have certainly been reviewed in at least one established European metal magazine: [11], [12], [13]. But that's another debate. As for this particular album, I'm holding off on a decision as it's been out less than a week and there is still time for reviews and other articles about it to be published. Richard3120 (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with this great opinion. It is an album of a relatively remarkable band (at least in Norway) and all their albums appear in specialized metal music publications. I hold my position, article deserves the opportunity to be preserved. User: Chavitico (Talk) 17:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me User talk:Richard3120 for that opinion (and for purposes of debate and consensus) do you say that the article deserves to be left (kkeep)?--Apega71 (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:NOTAVOTE. That, and I don't know how their opinion could be construed in any way other than a "neutral". Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it's odd how two editors just made the same mistake with linking a user name. Steel1943 (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Apega71: categorically, no. See WP:NALBUM – "That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." The fact that I think the band may pass WP:NBAND does not mean that this album is automatically notable, we need multiple reliable sources about the album itself. Richard3120 (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this is quite an interesting debate and thank you for being a part of it. I stand by my position that both Sahg and this álbum Born Demon are of interest for the reasons stated above. Especially the band, it is notable for some members who have made headlines in Norway for their musical work. So it would be unfortunate to redirect (and thus disappear, as it seems to be) this new album. But it is the decision of the majority in the end.--Apega71 (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what "of interest" refers to. Sahg consists of members who are apparently notable for other works, so the existence of that article is debatable, but per WP:NALBUM, WP:GNG, etc., it seems quite clear that Born Demon existing as an article in an encyclopedia is not plausible due to not meeting the established notability guidelines. Also, if you intended to address or rebuke any of the "redirect to Sahg" comments above, you did not; all you did was state your point of view without enforcing reasons why your point of view is compatible with Wikipedia permitting Born Demon existing in its current state per Wikipedia's established guidelines. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see WP:NOTAVOTE; consensus is determined by the weight of the arguments, not a majority of the vote. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What happens is that before the application of the rules of notability of an article in Wikipedia, there are not many arguments to debate. I would suggest the creator of this article include it as part of a section of the main Sahg band article.--Apega71 (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sahg. Except for a one-paragraph, debatably SIGCOV review from Decibel, which is RS per WP:A/S, the rest is a combination of poor Wordpress blogs or non-SIGCOV routine announcements (including the band's own official non-SIGCOV, non-independent announcement). My WP:BEFORE search found no more refs plausibly contributing to notability. Therefore, this fails WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM and should be redirected. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sahg. Fails WP:NALBUM per above arguments. A notable band does not make this album notable. SBKSPP (talk) 05:14, 29 October 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!} 21:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trioba 2+1[edit]

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

Non-notable concept car project that was never produced with a lot of outdated WP:CRYSTAL content. There is one source (https://www.carbodydesign.com/archive/2008/03/03-trioba-21-concept/) but even with it I think that this was mostly just a hypothetical car design project that doesn't really warrant an article on Wikipedia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Transportation, and India. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only sources are car blogs and similar sites, many links to the paw paw fruit when googling it for some reason. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Not notable, can't find any sources in Google. Contributor008 (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Has no significant coverage in independent reliable sources as far as I can see. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:07, 30 October 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 18:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If We Shout Loud Enough[edit]

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

Little established notability and little significant coverage; doubt it passes the notability guideline for films. It didn't win any awards nor become a box office success/bomb. Only sources present in the article are the film festival catalogue and an interview with one of the members of Double Dagger; interviews on their own don't establish notability without significant supplementary coverage. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, and Maryland. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 20:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It got a couple of basic release notices but no reliable reviews or other coverage, and now is only visible in the usual directories like IMDb. No evidence that it passes any of the requirements at WP:NFILM. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:08, 28 October 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} 18:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Fok (3rd nomination)[edit]

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

The page fails WP:GNG and was created and recreated by a sockpuppet User:ZanciD.

Suitskvarts (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the same reasons as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Fok and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Fok (2nd nomination), which the nominator appears not to have addressed other than a WP:VAGUEWAVE at GNG. Ineligible for blocked-sock deletion because the block happened only two weeks ago and the article was created last March; that criterion only works for articles created by someone evading existing blocks at the time of article creation. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may surprise you, but I've looked at sources and read previous discussions. I don't see 3 independent sources required by GNG, do you? Suitskvarts (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a recommendation, not a hard and fast rule. Oaktree b (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read the 1st AfD you would have seen my comment there "Straits Times, CNBC, and BBC are all major media from different countries, and while the Straits Times coverage of him is not very deep, I think the CNBC and BBC sources have enough depth of coverage to count." I also don't see a requirement for three sources in GNG, and I don't understand where you think this is a requirement. It says "multiple sources". Two is multiple. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was so accustomed to being usually required to have 3 sources that I considered it a strict rule. Apparently it isn't, but I don't see 2 here either:

Straits Times - just meantioned him as one of many members of The SDSC board.

CNBC - a few paragraphs, and almost half of that text is a direct quote. This is a WP:PRIMARY, like any interview, but we need a secondary source, right?

BBC Worklife - this is a side project like a blog about professions. Over the years a lot of people have been told there. I don't think they all deserve a personal Wiki page. Suitskvarts (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinions about BBC are irrelevant for whether it is in-depth, reliable, and independent. Your comment about whether people "deserve" an article suggests that you have a completely wrongheaded idea about how notability is achieved. We could measure notability by significance of accomplishments, and for a few subject-specific criteria like WP:NPOL we do, but WP:GNG-based notability is not about achievements, it is purely about the existence of in-depth independent sources. As for CNBC [14], it is a news story like any other. It is secondary, not primary, but GNG does not make that distinction; the thing you need to check instead is whether the author and publisher of the story are independent of Fok, and they are. It includes quotes by Fok that do not contribute to its depth of coverage of him, but it also includes multiple paragraphs of material including quotes by other people that are entirely about Fok. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the Straits Times source, there are three in the current revision:
On SDSC. This was added only last night by me after I was inadvertently pinged by Suitskvarts. Definitely not GNG, but merely providing an update to his professional life.

[15], and [16] were present at the time of this AfD written. The first is about him and few other tutors setting up a trade association for private tutors, while the second is a defamation suit against another tutor. The in-depth coverage of him varied, but all in all are indepedent and either writing at length or just simply quoting him.

[17] wasn't really Straits Times as TNP was a separate paper before going wholly digital and being merged into Straits Times due to financial issues (see SPH Media). – robertsky (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per previously discussed, "well covered by various sources internationally". Nom does not present arguments different from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthony_Fok, which was well-attended, except for the blocked-sock deletion. However, as mentioned by David Eppstein above, blocked-sock deletion isn't eligible in this case. Furthermore, more than half of the article had been rewritten/refactored by other editors after the tug-of-war draftification. Side note: personally, I feel that citing local newspaper articles alone for Singapore-related topics may not be sufficient as the same newspapers report on matters concerning all levels of society. However, I am comfortable if there are international newspapers writing articles about him or through him, his profession. – robertsky (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the more famous private tutors out there. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article updated with an online source, and two offline sources from Singapore's National Library Board, which I can give privately via email if needed. Online and 1 offline article added are full article coverage of BLP while remaining offline article is minor source for information. Passes GNG. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 08:33, 1 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 18:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 WhatsApp Outage[edit]

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

Applications have outages all the time. This is not notable enough for a standalone article. Andise1 (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 2021 Facebook outage is notable and a standalone article so why this outage is not notable? 2022 WhatsApp Outage is the second outage of WhatsApp so why first outage is notable and second is not? Contributor008 (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Contributor008 Other than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the notability of 2021 outage was discussed at it's own AfD. – robertsky (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Outages happen all the time and are only notable if in the case of the 2021 Facebook outage, where that happened for a very long time across multiple services XxLuckyCxX (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

for a very long time 6-7 hours?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minute trivia in the overall story of the platform, never mind its lack of meaningful impact on the wider world. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Websites. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat)^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a two hour outage is nothing serious. wp:ROUTINE; compare to the Rogers outage in Canada that left people without internet for 3 days and great parts of the country. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTS, only lasted for about 2 hours. Facebook outage, as said above, was longer and affected multiple services. echidnaLives - talk - edits 22:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outages happen regularly across all tech. Probably not even worth mentioning in the main WhatsApp article. Step hen 22:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Super minor, no major impact. CR-1-AB (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS applies. Ovinus (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No clear appreciable impact. DarkSide830 (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Vida0007 (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Many of these outages are worth covering in Wikipedia, but probably just as a line or paragraph in a larger article. MarioGom (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, seems to be a minor event. Only claim that it's notable in the article is that it's the longest outage of WhatsApp ever, which while it does appear to be stated by one sources, is also evidently untrue given 2021 Facebook outage lasted more than twice as long. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it is well covered by news media, an outage is perfectly common. No need to create articles for every outage of major applications. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTNEWS. Feels like WP:SNOW here. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:48, 29 October 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 18:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Spencer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable purveyor of hate. AfD closed as "keep" in 2009 but I think our standards for determining notability have improved since then. Most keep votes were not policy-based. Sources present in the article are passing mentions, hardly the in-depth coverage we look for. Being noted as a purveyor of hate by ADL and SPLC is not sufficient grounds for notability. I found nothing on Newspapers.com and the Google News link found by Bearian is broken and I cannot find anything that it could be. It's not helped by the presence of other "Glenn Spencers". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In 2009, our standards for what was reliable or deprecated, and for significant coverage have changed radically. 13 years ago I supported keeping this BLP, but now in 2022, I think our standards have become strict enough that deletion is necessary. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ditto the nominator's rationale. Falls short of WP:SIGCOV. Non-notable. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:50, 1 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. It would have been easier for a closer if these pages had been presented as a bundled nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility[edit]

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

I am nominating all subpages of List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility -- i.e. the full list split over 20 different pages. I do not see evidence that the pages meet WP:LISTN -- I cannot find books or scholarship that discuss the development of nicknames in European royalty as a whole. Obviously individual nicknames are often notable, but I do not see discussion of this topic "as a group or set by independent reliable sources". This is currently an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, badly sourced and nearly impossible to manage. It's unclear what the WP:LISTCRITERIA are: what nicknames are notable enough to make it? And given the timeframe and lack of full sourcing involved that will be an almost impossible standard to set: the level of sourcing available for each nickname will vary wildly by how much scholarship there is for each individual/how old they are.

The largest pages are generally less than 50% sourced (A: 346 footnotes for 800+ entries, C: 292/700+, E: 212/500+, F: 198/~400, H: 199/~550, J: 278/550+, L: 209/500+). The only other option is to do a huge cut of these pages down to only sourced nicknames, but frankly I don't think that's worth the effort. Any truly notable nicknames can be listed on the person's page, which is the first place the reader will go to find information about that person--not a barely viewed list page. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Lists, and Europe. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Besides being largely unsourced, there's no reason why these many thousands of people should have their nicknames lumped together. They may belong on respective individuals' articles, but there's nothing saying why listing them in this way isn't indisriminate. Reywas92^Talk 16:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I agree with all that Reywas92 says. This is a completely trivial and pointless list. Athel cb (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. This has been a long time coming, for all the reasons mentioned by the nom and by me here. JoelleJay (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And for a taste of what it's like trying to work with the article creator, here's their response to my comment. JoelleJay (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above and per my comments at the user talk section JoelleJay linked above, which I see have not been addressed in the slightest. Fails WP:V/WP:OR spectacularly. eviolite (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic topic. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheran Church in the Philippines[edit]

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

This article doesn't meet any notability criteria. If I was just mistaken, please state here below. If not, then please vote Delete Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 14:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Philippines. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appear to be sources, although I can't access most of them online. The following is just from the first page of Google Books:

An Analysis of Clericalism in Some Philippine Church Bodies as an Obstacle to Lay Activity in the Lutheran Church in the Philippines

History of a Half a Century of Lutheran Mission in the Republic of the Philippines

The Encyclopedia of Christianity

And there are plenty more, I just can't be bothered linking them. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ficaia. Not all the references provide significant coverage, but some do, and I have started adding some to the article. It looks like WP:BEFORE was not done in this instance. St Anselm (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a denomination, not a mere local church; perhaps 100 congregations. The history is cited from a denominational webpage, but this cites its sources as published books, making it a reliable source. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As how I see it going, I realized I was mistaken, It was just a stub. I also forgot how all Denominations are considered as notable. I'm really sorry, I Withdraw my nomination for this article for deletion. Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 01:21, 26 October 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 . Academic Challenger (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty Vlădoiu[edit]

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

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Nasty Vlădoiu by, err, Nasty Vlădoiu! Mr. Vlădoiu, would you like to explain to us which of the WP:PROF criteria you fulfill and why? Otherwise, you know, your nice little autobiography has to go, and what a shame that would be… - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nasty seems to be a busy fellow. Many articles where he offers his opinion on xyz subject, but I can't find any that deal with him/are about him as an individual. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nasty shouldn't be writing articles about himself, that's OR/conflict of interest. We need neutral, third party sources to prove why he's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding enough evidence to support a pass of the en-WP general notability WP:GNG or WP:NPROF guidelines. Also there is the WP:COI/WP:AUTOBIO matter. His H-index score is only 3, so he's not going to pass PROF on that. It is interesting to note that there is not an article in Romanian WP. To the creator: Nasty Vlădoiu, English Wikipedia (en-WP) strongly advises against creating an autobiography. Notability is established by what unconnected sources say about you. It is not enough to have written and published your own work, what is needed to pass our notability requirements is to have substantial coverage WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable secondary or tertiary sources: in other words things that others have written about you or your work. If you want to write about yourself to present yourself to the world, it's better to use LinkedIn, a social networking site, to or start a personal website (or ask your university to make one for you) than to created an encyclopedia article about yourself. If substantial independent sources are found, or if the awards prove to be notable you may place that on the article talk page or here for consideration, however because of your conflict of interest, you should stop editing the article directly. Netherzone (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An H-index of 3 is not notable, at all. Oaktree b (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Mr. Vlădoiu has changed the name of the article to Vlădoiu Nasty- Marian. Netherzone (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Romania. Netherzone (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPROF, fails WP:GNG, is WP:ADMASQ and WP:NOTWEBHOST 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Per all the policies quoted above, and also the bit about the h-index being equal to 3. Nuff said. Turgidson (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise against a speedy delete. I think it is easier to contest a CSD carried by an admin than an AFD consensus decision to "Delete". Let this discussion play out for a week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I had not thought of that. Thanks for the explanation, I'll keep that in mind in the future. Turgidson (talk) 11:04, 26 October 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 23:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdcore Medical[edit]

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

The topic of this article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. IndyNotes (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is promotional, and there's not a lot out there about this company other than PR. But if someday the company's approach is studied a little more by the medical community and there are some academic publications that case study it, there could be an article on that basis. FalconK (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PR releases and a few blogs, nothing else covering the company. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 25 October 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Strategic Dialogue[edit]

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

Reads like advert; zero reliable sources. Only blogs, passing WP:MILL mentions and many unreferenced statements. Created by a single purpose account. Benedikt Gerendeg (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to modify this page to align with Wikipedia guidelines (including reliable sources and references). zahed (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

zahed (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (COI declared at User:zahed)

This article should be deleted immediately! It is vital to our democracy to allow corporate billionaires and deep state government tyrants running the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, to continue to operate in secret beyond the prying eyes of peasants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.145.163 (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "peasantry" will determine notability according to guidelines, honorable comrade. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, wouldn't you want to have objective information about this organisation in Wikipedia for all to see? If there are issues to be raised that can be cited per Wikipedia guidelines, please add them. I've only attempted to fix an article that has been neglected (and improperly formatted) for years. I am happy to leave further building of the article for others also. zahed (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So that's one vote for delete then? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's clear to me that this article is of very low quality (essentially a piece of marketing copy for a political organization), but it seems plausible to me that it nevertheless meets notability guidelines and something reasonable could be salvaged from what we have. I will try to remember to take a look later. jp×g 23:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The community of editors should be aware of the very important recent report of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue: «Information Warfare and Wikipedia». --Perohanych (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I think all of these concerns should apply to this entry for ISD as well. I've disclosed my conflict of interest and have tried to ensure that all citations are notable and credible. But I had to update this entry as it was scheduled for deletion and no one else seemed willing to update this entry to suit Wikipedia guidelines.

As you can see from the report, the Institute is very aware of the importance of Wikipedia and how it can be manipulated by extremists and state actors. I implore other editors to please review the text currently on the ISD entry, correct it, or add to it as appropriate (even including documented controversies or criticism if you can find it). I am not doing this on instruction of the Institute, but as a longtime Wikipedia user who feels that the organisation is notable and worthy of inclusion. Please let me know if there is any other information I can provide. zahed (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep combines several sources into a decently-sourced article; most aren't about the Organization, but can be used to support GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There seems to be some RS coverage, and it's not clear that there was a WP:BEFORE check. It just needs cleanup. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some cleaning up for sure but it has enough sources to establish notability. It should be noted that in cases like this we should be flexible. Think tanks and academic institutes don't always have a lot of coverage that is directly about them. But the work they do is notable even if it's passing or primary works. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:22, 26 October 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 MOR Entertainment#Final MOR stations. And this redirect will receive a small amount of protection so this decision isn't immediately reverted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DXFH[edit]

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

Subject has been restored multiple times as redirect, fails WP:BCAST and WP:GNG. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to its original as an WP:ATD, considering WP:PROTECT to avoid any further restorations again. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kurogane (company)[edit]

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

Non-notable company, their main website is dead, and I did not find any reputable sources. RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Japan. RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is written poorly. No significant coverage found. Does not meet WP:COMPANY Fifthapril (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete working on a Wii game eh? That's at least 3 console generations ago (maybe two), so this is terribly out of date. No sources found, dead website, delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 16:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not satisfy the notability requirement for companies. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources or indication of notability. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 29 October 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 per WP:SNOW. Because Draft:ORDO Store had already been declined, and then rejected, a copy of it in main space should have been merged back over draft so that it could be improved and eventually accepted for submission. The draft still exists. The reviewer who rejected it could be contacted to reconsider if there is potential for improving it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ORDO Store[edit]

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

ORDO Store

This article was declined in Articles for Creation, and then moved into article space, and moved back into draft space as not ready for article space, but a copy has been created in article space anyway. This article does not satisfy WP:NCORP. It has been reference-bombed, and the references have not been analyzed in depth for significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Albania. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one is so obviously far from Wikipedia's standards that a discussion for deletion should not be held. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just an ad, no reason for it to be here. Jhhillman (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my personal favorite ref is "Government document". Rest are listings, their own website/blog and various passing mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did notify the article author. They deleted the AFD notice from their talk page, which is their privilege and indicates that they have seen it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHello everyone. I hope you are very good. I am so glad to be here and this is wonderful to be here. I am so sorry about all this noise I have made with these writings but I just have tried to do all my best. This is my second article I did and this is all about not to doing right. This is a company in my country and I have nothing to do with it, also I have nothing to do about it in paid article. I just registered on Wikipedia and I loved this place here. That is all about it. I tried to see many videos about how to write an article in the perfect way so I tried to. All of them said "you need many references" so I tried to find a lot of. I hope will not do anything wrong if I will try to add something else about Albanian interests. Sorry again for everything I did wrong Nrt0011 (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Nrt0011 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Nrt0011, no new editor gets everything right with their first few articles. Take this AFD as a learning experience. Listen to what experienced editors identify as problems which will help you avoid these problems in the future. It's not about getting things perfect, it's about improving as an editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

owner of the business - hello everyone. i am rubin qatja. i am the brother of one of the owners of this business. this business is working and already everything presented here is right. i dont know to talk about wikipedia rules and so, but i know that this is real business and i am ready to present any kind of documents if needed. i am so happy you added this business here. i want this business to be here not because of any marketing or something like this some editors told me. if this business is here or it is not here there is zero marketing on it and we will not earn more money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gru088 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Gru088 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

@Gru088: Your business is not entitled to have an article on Wikipedia just because it exists. Only companies that meet Wikipedia's notability criteria are considered worthy of inclusion. An article about a non-notable business will be considered promotional and subject to deletion. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL organisation. Not everything or everyone that exists merits a Wikipedia article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP no in-depth significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to show special notability as a company. While the company obviously existed, it has not shown enough notability for a standalone article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:24, 28 October 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!} 21:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John DenBoer[edit]

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

I do not think that either WP:BIO or WP:PROF are met. The only reliable source cited in the current article that provides biographical information is this in Newsweek. This from the Phoenix Business Journal has some information about his company, but little biographical content. The rest are unreliable e.g. WP:FORBESCON or primary. I have searched myself but not been able to find any better sources. SmartSE (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP - There is enough coverage about subject to meet WP:GNG. VentureBeat is reliable source. There are also coverage on medical related sites with The NewsWeek, The Forbes and VentureBeat.--Ehtsham Tariq (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)— Ehtsham Tariq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Psychology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DenBoer is of marginal notability and the article will be a BLP nightmare because he has surrendered his license. Jahaza (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A sensible alternative to deletion might be a redirect to a stub on This is Dementia. In addition to the Newsweek piece, there is a similar piece in Marketwatch [18]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Russ Woodroofe: I've considered that but there are two issues with doing that. First, those sources are extremely un-critical to the extent that they are potentially unreliable. Marketwatch calls him a clinical psychologist when as Jahaza has demonstrated that they cannot call themselves that. If they didn't manage to check such a basic fact, it isn't very encouraging. Newsweek is better, but is still mainly just an unquestioning interview. Second, even if we did create an article on the documentary, it would be extremely short, as there would be no MEDRS-compliant information that could be included. SmartSE (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Smartse, I agree it's marginal for WP:NBOOK, and that any stub would need to be quite short. I unfortunately did not find any other reviews/similar. As far as the narrow issue of the Marketwatch piece and the psychologist title: it appears that he lost his psychologist license at the end of 2020 (after a probationary period starting in late 2018); the interview was in early 2019. So I don't think this is a red flag; I don't see any other red flags apart from the piece being mainly an interview. I believe Marketwatch to be generally reliable, although it is not discussed by WP:RSP. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Russ Woodroofe: Ahh I thought you were talking about the documentary rather than the book. As far as I can see neither of those sources make any reference to the book. It is self-published and when I searched for reviews I couldn't find any. SmartSE (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Doh! I did mean the documentary, and shouldn't have referred to NBOOK. The WP:NFILM is fairly similar to NBOOK (though with some important differences, such as the emphasis on national film critics). It is not clear that NFILM is quite the right standard for a Netflix documentary (which I think also bears some features of television), but WP:NTV is only an essay. However: we have in any case only two marginal-to-very-marginal sources, and I am now convinced that it is not enough for an article on the documentary. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I see some progress towards notability, I think it is WP:TOOSOON at best. The sources in the article at the time of AfD nomination were mostly refbombing. The BLP issues regarding the loss of license are not a reason to delete, but are certainly not a reason to keep. The case for an article on the documentary is a little stronger, but this still appears to fall short. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:24, 27 October 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. The arguments to keep are generally somewhat weak, but some SIGCOV has been shown, and we can't discount it simply because it concerns things that wouldn't be covered in non-royalty. My personal inclination is to delete, but there's consensus to keep here. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews[edit]

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

Being a relative of British royalty doesn't make one automatically notable. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. There is no WP:SIGCOV of him that I see. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once again, British royals, especially when younger, have major coverage in the media. He will also one day be Duke of Kent, one of the pre-eminent titles of the British aristocracy (we have not yet, I believe, deleted any article about a duke). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"have major coverage in the media". This needs to be demonstrated - the article certainly does not do so. Also, note that trivial coverage like two-three sentences that "Noble/royal ex. had a child or got married or divorced", which I expect we could find a few if we dug through newspaper archives, are trivial and don't meet WP:SIGCOV. Was he the subject of multiple, in-depth newspaper pieces? As for whether Dukes are auto-notable, please quote a relevant policy, and if they are, well, we can revisit this WHEN he becomes a duke. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, we have. Pilaz (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, not quite, since a large part of the argument there was that he wasn't a duke. Jahaza (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as member of the Royal Family: plenty of coverage in newspaper archives of his birth, christening, marriage etc. Plenty of books covering royal children feature him, for example there are about ten pages about him in 'My Young Friends-': The Queen's Young Family Piecesofuk (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Was born, baptised, married... Like majority of population. Have we obtained any non-trivial information? Mpn (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piecesofuk I have reviewed the 10 pages work. It's not exactly 10 pages (there are illustrations taking some space, and the font is big and there's lot of empty spaces), but that's a technicallity. Arguably, this source may meet WP:SIGCOV, good find, although it's just one. GNG requires multiple such sources. Can you point out another one that satisfies SIGCOV? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above there are plenty of books about royal children that cover him that can be searched on archive.org, maybe not as substantial as the one I mentions above but not trivial, for example The Kents , Royal Children, Royal children of the twentieth century He was the target of an IRA kidnap plot in 1971 which got plenty of coverage: U.K.: Police Place Armed Guard After Threat To Kidnap Young Member Of Royal Family , search in British Newspaper Archive . Also his wedding was controversial: Sunday Independent (Dublin) - Sunday 10 January 1988 Earl's wedding makes history, Irish Independent - Monday 11 January 1988 Hideaway Royal couple search in British Newspaper Archive Piecesofuk (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, the sources are paywalled, except the first one, which I don't think meets WP:SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS. If a plot to kindap him or his wedding generated coverage, well, that's coverage of the plot, and of his wedding, not of him. WP:NOTINHERITED. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is notable, and quite interesting and he is the son and heir of the Duke of Kent. WiltedXXVI (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE. Why is it notable? Pilaz (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he (is expected) be the next Duke of Kent. cookie monster 755 03:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles consisting only of family history fail WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Consequently, newspaper coverage about genealogical topics is immaterial to notability. The only content that is not genealogical, the succession issues, is unsourced. Members of a royal family are not automatically notable, see WP:MONARCH. Sandstein 10:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am going to relist this one due to the ongoing discussion between Piecesofuk and Piotrus. However, I almost closed this as a delete due to the weakness of everyone but Piecesofuk's keep contribution. I would like to remind editors that notability is not inherited.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe TOOSOON? 41st in line to the crown isn't notable, maybe when his father dies and he assumes the full title he'd be better for GNG. Anything this far down the peerage is essential just another rich Joe with a fancy title. I mean he has to pass GNG, but I don't see anything he's done that another same/similar person does, marries, attends Mass, rather routine stuff. He hasn't invented cold fusion or something ground-breaking. Appears to have been chancellor of a university circa 2017, not sure how that colours the discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning non-notable, if that helps the discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His being chancellor of the University of Bolton raises the question of whether he meets the standard of holding a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Chancellor is a ceremonial post. The highest-level administrative post at British universities is vice-chancellor. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I can never keep track of which title has which meaning in which system. The guideline mentions that this differs among countries, but maybe we should go more into specifics somewhere. XOR'easter (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree with the nominator that this gentlemen isn't automatically notable because of his royal relations. Yet, Piecesofuk has identified newspaper sources that seem to indicate he is perhaps more notable than other relatives. I'd suggest keeping for now and adding that information into the article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. He passes WP:GNG; there are sources which provide more information about him than just genealogy, such as [19]. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons given by others above. --Bduke (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Joyrimpau (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Le sigh. Keep, I guess. Royalty are just influencers these days, but with a more ardent fan base. However, there are sources for notability. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ceremonial post at a university and 41st in line for the throne aren't notable. I'd be willing to change my !vote if the man accomplished something/anything of note, rather than just going about his business. Did he found any notable philanthropic thing or start some renown festival? He just appears to sit on various boards/working groups, none of which are anything special. "Rich guy works with a charity" is how I'm reading what it boils down to. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As piecesofuk has shown above, he has been noted...a lot. That's sufficient. 128.252.16.235 (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage in reliable sources over time to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is insufficient information about this subject in reliable sources to write a balanced article. There is also no presumed notability based on family or title. The title is actually curtesy, the subbstantial title belongs to his father. It would be better as a redirect to the royal family article. TFD (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with those above that simply being related to/a member of the royal family is not alone enough for notability. But I do think 'next in line to be Duke of Kent' is more than just being in the royal family, and there are a range of other roles here which strongly indicate notability. Being the chancellor of a university, for instance, is far from inconsequential, even if it is mostly ceremonial. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:30, 1 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis of faith[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is original research article with no encyclopaedical value Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page has a lot of issues but I can't really agree that it isn't an encyclopedic topic - given the number of philosophers and others who have written on it. It seems to me to be a notable subject alongside Leap of faith etc. JMWt (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Spirituality. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is the subject of a number of scholarly works, like this one and this one from the citations, and it has been written about for a long time by notable figures. It seems to me the subject meets WP:N guidelines. I welcome efforts to improve the article. Jno.skinner (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: for clarity I am the originator of this article; I'm not sure if my voice counts in this discussion. I have added a lot of sources since the article was nominated for deletion. I am kind of scared that something I worked so hard on to the best of my ability might be deleted for reasons I don't fully understand. I have reached out to Arthistorian1977 asking for more specific feedback on improvements but I have heard nothing back. Jno.skinner (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A crisis of faith seems to be an encyclopedic topic to me, as much has been written about the exact idea of a "crisis of faith" or "faith crisis". The content is not covered by Spiritual Crisis, which states the event is caused by a spiritual experience, as opposed to a "crisis of faith", which seems to be associated with direct life experiences or new information gained in contradiction to deeply held beliefs or communally held beliefs, for example, Holocaust Theology. It doesn't seem that no page should exist to discuss this topic, but I agree it would benefit from some edits. Any suggestions on edits, additions, deletions, or else to improve the quality? There's a wealth of books to select from to bulk up, modify, or support claims. Lizard Commissioner (talk) 22:02, 15 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!} 08:50, 18 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!} 08:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is certainly encyclopedic. Keep or merge with spiritual crisis. Also note that deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator has not justified deletion. Srnec (talk) 21:03, 25 October 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. Original nominator blocked as a sock and no WP:BEFORE done; the betting sponsor of the Bundesliga with shirt sponsorships is obviously notable. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 12:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 12:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tipico[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NCORP. the article is based on self-referencing and referencing of press-releases or other not reliable sources Mambo Rumbo (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Malta. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nominator has mass-nominated 10 articles on betting/gambling companies with apparently zero WP:BEFORE effort to look for reliable sources. These companies operate in non-English-speaking countries so finding the sources is likely to take some effort. Please do your due diligence instead of trying to force that work onto other editors. Tipico, for example, is a multi-national corporation, the largest sports betting company in Germany, and has over 1,200 brick-and-mortar shops. Toohool (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Toohool (talk) 22:19, 23 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!} 08:50, 25 October 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GeoLotto[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not responding WP:NCORP as there are mainly press releases, gambling spam websites references and own official non-reliable or other suspicious sources Mambo Rumbo (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. No indication that anything has changed since the 1st nomination that was closed as keep. Toohool (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Speedy Keep. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Part of a rapid-fire mass nomination of gambling companies with zero WP:BEFORE diligence. Toohool (talk) 22:14, 23 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!} 08:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Toohool's rationale is convincing here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBet[edit]

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

Not responding WP:NCORP as there are mainly press releases, gambling spammy websites references and own official non-reliable or other suspicious sources Mambo Rumbo (talk) 07:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, and Websites. Skynxnex (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[20] looks pretty good as a source. 2 or 3 more like that would be plenty IMO. The other sources in the article seem pretty weak, but I don't know the field well enough to be sure. Hobit (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit no, they look terrible and paid. Here are some clues -- Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) 24.138.27.215 (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit the site itself doesn't look notable or reliable. I mean baltictimes. it's a ghost site with 100k visits. https://pokerindustrypro.com/ this one it terrible with 19k visits. and it's run by some freelancers from India which are spamming with paid articles in news all around. 24.138.27.215 (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you be more specific? Are you saying [21] is a paid-for article? It most certainly doesn't feel like it. Also [22] is unlikely to be a paid article, though it seems to be mostly behind a paywall. Hobit (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC
Delete no significant coverage and reliable ind. sources. 24.138.27.215 (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've provided two here, could you explain why the coverage isn't helpful toward WP:N? Hobit (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and the IP above appears to be another of his socks. Part of a rapid-fire mass nomination of gambling companies with zero WP:BEFORE diligence. Toohool (talk) 22:12, 23 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!} 08:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 07:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahendra Kudiya[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable person. Persistent recreation and moves from draft to mainspace. The source in the article is not sufficient enough to notability Jamiebuba (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI think this page is a Promotional article about a non-notable person, only one single Article That too is not secondary Sources fail WP:RS And not falling into WP:GNG Criteria, move to Draft Lionfox0909 (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet the GNG: the best sources I could find are ones like [23] and [24], both of which are clearly non-independent puff pieces. Draftification wouldn't be helpful here, in my view, since the main problem – non-notability – can't be resolved by editing and shows no sign of going away in the near future. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:17, 28 October 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 Nomination withdrawn. Wrong venue in any case. (non-admin closure) --Finngall ^talk 14:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kittu c[edit]

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

Not a notable person; unencyclopedic entry. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:24, 25 October 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 23:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wymola, Arizona[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~Pog ing Juan 05:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As it stands, there is no reliable sourcing that demonstrates legal recognition as required by GEOLAND. Maps show only a railroad siding at this location. –dlthewave ☎ 19:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can only turn up passing mentions to this as a rail stop and the location of a historic marker for a Civil War battle completely unrelated to the site. Hog Farm _Talk 01:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. – Joe (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - plenty of mentions of this place during the 20s and 30s: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. Also mentions here, here Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- My wikipedia library newspapers.com has lapsed, so I can't check the first few, but the neither of the last two links there is useful for establishing notability - one is a caption for a picture of a train driving through rail spot with nothing there but cactus, and the other is a reference to a rail switch. Hog Farm _Talk 01:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- These are all passing mentions, mainly in relation to the railroad or unrelated events that took place in the vicinity. I don't see anything here that would contribute to GNG or provide useful content for the article. –dlthewave ☎ 02:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arizona Place Names on page 310 says it is a railroad siding, notable for being one of the first places to be named on the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1881. The entry for Picacho Pass on page 302 says that the train station was about one mile southeast of the present Wymola siding on the SPRR. I looked at the newspapers.com links posted above and all of them mention Wymola in the context of the Southern Pacific Railroad, the one that doesn't necessarily give the SPRR context but doesn't give the impression that Wymola is a settlement of any kind, and the April 16, 1928 article linked above with the dateline of Wymola even refers to it as "this little flag station". RecycledPixels (talk) 22:20, 19 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!} 05:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable railroad siding that does not meet WP:STATION. No legal recognition, no non-trivial coverage. I feel for Onel5969, the wholesale retaliatory edits were uncalled for and inappropriate, but in this case, WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND are not met. Cxbrx (talk) 15:10, 27 October 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!} 04:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Golpaygan University of Technology[edit]

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

No sources listed in article, unable to find significant coverage. Probable GNG fail. InvadingInvader (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. InvadingInvader (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see it described as a "small university" with about 500 students [25]. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:20, 11 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!} 05:16, 18 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!} 05:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not having enough source to show the article is notable. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commodity Discovery Fund[edit]

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

Highly promotional article about a non-notable fund, lacks secondary coverage or evidence of notability beyond its mere existence as an investment fund. Fails WP:NCORP; WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Netherlands. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I am the author of the article please guide me to improve it to prevent deletion. I do not agree that it is a non-notable fund especially compared to many many other small funds that have a wikipedia page. The founder Willem Middelkoop is an important international thought leader on all matters financial. He has an extensive Dutch wikipedia page since he is very well known in the Netherlands. He has written many books on finance and has coined the term "super inflation" in an English interview. In the light of the current inflation I am working on a number of Wikipedia pages that relate the this predicament. I am a senior copywriter but relatively new to Wikipedia. I am trying to learn as fast as I can what will do on wikipedia and what wont. I was working on a Willem Middelkoop (who currently is traveling the world giving speeches and participating in panel discussions) page in english but that one got rejected right away due to a lack of external sources. So I decided to make a Commodity Discovery Fund first quoting only from external sources. You say it's too promotional. So please go ahead and take out what you find unfitting. But deletion? I don't think that's appropriate. Look at this page for instance: Powering Australian Renewables Fund . If that fund has a wikipedia page then Commodity Discovery Fund should really have one. Especially I am sure that Middelkoop merits an english page (compare https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Middelkoop). So please help me out how I can work on various inflation related matters and stay within wikipedia's guidelines. It is my ambition to become a valued member of the tribe. Hajosmit (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a paragraph about the not so good results of the fund. This is important additional information since the growth of the fund until now has mostly been inflow of new capital rather that gains on the investments. The fund and it's owner founder represent an important economic monetary debate that's raging in these years of rabid money printing and recently high inflation. I really want to make the article sound and good for Wikipedia before further building Willem Middelkoops lemma in english. See this english interview with more than 1 million views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-8FYpusTYg Hajosmit (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have been reading these guidelines now: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

Independent reliable sources for CD Fund exist. Will adapt the article accordingly.

I presume youtube channels like this also count as reliable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu1uLzFPy4Q Hajosmit (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see a lot of gesturing but do not see evidence of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. I also see the common Dutch country name confusion, this time topped by confusion around the University of Queensland. Kudos to the nominator for a fine nomination. With AfDs, when we decrease the quantity, the quality increases! gidonb (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I understand how you come to interpret my arguments as "gesturing"... and I'm reading these policies for the first time and see how you come to your mistrust. I was hoping for discussion and now I have it. I want to learn. In your opinion are mining websites like https://www.miningstockeducation.com/ and https://www.kitco.com reliable sources concerning the mining world? I would say yes. You? Also could you tell me how this fund for example is notable: Powering Australian Renewables Fund. As a Dutch native I have no idea what you mean by "Dutch country name confusion". I can't have made any mistakes here. And I mention the University of Brisbane. Not Queensland. Felt it was appropriate to suggest someone makes a page. Is that not OK? Please inform me .... Hajosmit (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. Folks who live in the Netherlands are often confused about the Netherlands. Can you please link to the homepage of your "University of Brisbane"? The links you provide look nothing like WP:RS that would support notability. Data references: sure. But, to keep, the basic notability of a topic must be established. Powering Australian Renewables Fund doesn't look notable either. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we do not copy mistakes from one article (in this case the mistake is the article's very existence) to another! Rather, we aim to correct all mistakes. The correction would be deleting both. And fair disclosure: do you get paid by Willem Middelkoop or an affiliated company or are you invested in this fund? gidonb (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your informative reply. Funny the compilation at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. My exact goal is to get to know the Wikipedia community and it's rules and guidelines. I know Middelkoop personally and have done some paid copywriting for his firm, like make a brochure, write a blog etc.. I proposed to work on his Dutch Wikipedia page and there I have made many improvements that have been retained. The work in English I do pro bono also to learn. I might offer sponsored Wikipedia editing service in the future, which as far as I have seen is allowed. Question: someone has marked my page as a "stub" and added Category:Dutch company stubs. I have checked this category page and was surprised to find tons of non notable companies including many restaurants. As an example I wonder I you feel if this is a notable company: FD Mediagroep. Not as in "otherstuffexists" but just to learn. You must be able to tell me how I could alter the CD Fund page to make it acceptable. Lastly: I still don't understand what "Netherlands" stuff I made confusing or what's up with the University of Brisbane link (to non existent page). Waiting for your answers. Hajosmit (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you put a link here to the homepage of your "University of Brisbane", I can understand what you meant. Just copy and paste the URL! FD Mediagroep is individually notable but best merged into its parent that we do not yet carry. I have actually done a lot of work on media companies, for example here and here. This is where I would like to go with company articles in general. gidonb (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "my" University of Brisbane. I just thought a University should always have a Wikipedia page and so I might as well opt for the red colored link to non existing page. Is that not done? Please inform me. Or just change it on the page to what it should be. I already have the citation of the study so a separate external link to the university makes no sense.

Then I still don't now what you meant by Dutch/Netherlands confusion since I don't see any.

Your Lannoo and DPG Media pages are impressive to say the least. Both certainly merit a Wikipedia page. I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't become a company listing where companies can post stubs with promo blabla. But if a company is relevant to historic developments like commodities, inflation, war, energy transition etc then it does merit a page. Certainly one could argue "OK let's wait 20 years and decide then". I don't know how current Wikipedia tries to be..... I thought yes. Hajosmit (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but I still do not know what you meant by the "University of Brisbane". Is it the University of Queensland or the "Holistic University of Brisbane"? To your question, we already carry articles for all or virtually all accredited universities worldwide. We have some articles also for nonaccredited "universities" but try not to be complete in this field. Also here I did some work, for example. If you do not find an article on an organization that calls itself university this is because it is not a real university OR because you are confused about the name of a real university, in addition to the country name confusion. gidonb (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. A search yielded no secondary sources with significant coverage on the Commodity Discovery Fund.4meter4 (talk) 01:53, 25 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!} 05:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives I do not agree that the news sources from the mining sector fail WP:NCORP. Just one question. If you look at the long standing Dutch page https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Middelkoop do you feel that Willem Middelkoop personally merits a page on the English Wikipedia? I could rework the company page to a personal page if you insist, yet I still believe that both merit pages, both company and the founder. I mean Wikipedia is not just for names everyone knows like Goldman Sachs or Warren Buffet. Put yourself in the shoes of an English native who sees an interview with CD Fund / Willem Middelkoop and searches it or him to know a little more. Final practical question: is there a visual editor to add new items on the discussion page? This one I did in the code editor. Hajosmit (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Nlwiki allows for this WP:COI WP:OR WP:BLP to exist in its current state is a disgrace. It's not a coincidence as Nlwiki is known for bad quality. This is further explained, for example, under the headers quality and culture at Dutch Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I learned some more.... I'm reading all these guidelines.... very helpful thank you. Concerning COI: I'm an academic with an academic interest in matters. As you see in the paragraph Mixed Results I have no interest to make the page promotional. I am aiming at a factual sourced description of the fund. I am waiting for suggestions to make alterations. Lastly: could you elaborate a bit abut how Nlwiki could have such different standards? At WP:COI by the way I see that paid editing is allowed but should be revealed. I will start studying Articles for Creation (AfC) as well. I was not aware that exists. For the funds page I'm waiting for constructive suggestions to redact... Hajosmit (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, you had to tell upfront that Middelkoop pays you. I figured out that you are a paid contributor when I checked if your user belongs to Middelkoop. Nlwiki has too many articles on too few editors and admins. A lot of what is written in Nlwiki is complete nonsense. Compare it, for example, with the English, German, and Hebrew wikipedias that are much better. It's not the entire problem but only for this reason, already, they cannot but miserably fail. The rest makes the situation even worse. gidonb (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Middelkoop doesn't pay me for anything I do on Wikipedia. This I consider a hobby and a learning project. I'm already learning a lot thanks to people like you. I just said that because in principle paid editing is allowed that in the future once I'm fully aware of all Wikipedia guidelines I would consider doing some paid editing on subjects not related to donors. But if you say that just because in the past Middelkoop has paid me for a few copywriting matters, I need to indicate that, I'm happy to do so. Still: even though Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS actually other stuff does exist also on the English Wikipedia. Check: BlackRock World Mining Trust. So if we would scale back Commodity Discovery Fund to such a short simple lemma would you be OK with it? Or are you going to nominate BlackRock World Mining Trust for deletion as well? I'm still wating for suggestions for alternatives. Hajosmit (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article should be deleted period. No merge, rewrite, redirect, or anything else. gidonb (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And how does it work with consensus in Youtube? How is it arrived at? How many editors should look at each case? PS I still don't agree especially when I see BlackRock World Mining Trust. You say that the English Wikipedia is very strict .. well then ... Hajosmit (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I find even more bizarre is that BlackRock World Mining Trust is NOT marked for deletion, but as a STUB. I find that great in principle, but I would suspect that the lemma needs to be set-up such that the notability is proven first, then expanded. Commodity Discovery Fund is much more notable than the former since it actively engages in societal debate about the monetary system, commodities, inflation etc.. Hajosmit (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It sure has been answered before. It's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and as such does not belong here. gidonb (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives I just realized that from the mining world there are some lemma's that would definitively merit a page and that I could work on in the coming weeks. Like the Lassonde Curve as introduced by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Lassonde (could also make a paragraph in his lemma), of which there are plenty independent sources. Then there is the Uganda Gold Announcement which has been extrensively covered by tons of media: https://www.reuters.com/article/uganda-gold-idUSKBN2NP17M . Could merit its own page or a paragraph on the Uganda page. I hope you would support me staring on these pages. And... Carthago delenda est ehhhh I remain on he position that some form of Commodity Discovery Fund page merits retention. Hajosmit (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AFD has been improperly relisted by a participant. The discussion should be closed as delete when the first relist expires. gidonb (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the improper relist. gidonb (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. I don't really understand what that was for when Liz did that. I thought for not nesting too many layers of answers. Apparently not? Will you also answer my questions? Appreciate your time. Hajosmit (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of diplomatic missions in Slovakia#Missions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Representative Office, Bratislava[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Embassies (or in this case de facto embassy) are not inherently notable. All the article does is confirm the office exists. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of diplomatic missions in Slovakia#Missions per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives for deletion. I will support a standalone article if significant coverage is found that discusses the history of this representative office. Cunard (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 11 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!} 02:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:58, 25 October 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shōji Kojima[edit]

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

Could not find major significant coverage on the person. Little citations, unsure on if Kojima passes the GNG. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Dance, and Japan. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should be kept. He is a significant inclusion for topics covering Flamenco in Japan, and he seems to be quite well-known with flamenco enthusiasts and there are many articles and videos on YouTube about him, so I think he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Arkansore (talk) 15:18, 11 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!} 02:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It looks like the sources in the article are enough to meet WP:ENT. There several hits in Spanish language publications, most of which look like reviews. Searching for "shoji kojima" is a bit more productive than "Shōji Kojima." There's also a paywalled review in the English language Japan Times from 2018 that I can't read. It looks like he's an awardee of a number of cultural medals as well, like the Cultural Medal of Honor and perhaps (according to the Japanese version of the article) the Order of the Rising Sun. I doubt that any of these awards make the recipient preemptively notable, but it suggests that he has reached the lifetime achievement stage of his career, which does show some sustained notoriety. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a few sources. There is a problem of locating sources simultaenously accessible and in languages people on this page read. However, several sources refer to Kojima as "celebrated", a key figure in Japanese flamenco and flamenco worldwide etc etc. There is a whole book about him as well as chapters on his work. He has a lot of awards, and even gets special mention by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology as a significant figure in the arts. So I think he's clearly notable - we don't need to worry about that. We just have to improve on our own job at locating more sources. One thing we need to do is clear up the main biography a bit more, as it had been taken verbatim from his English language profile. I've made a start on that. The problem is that some secondary source profiles appear to have used it fairly directly as well.OsFish (talk) 08:23, 25 October 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 Growler Mine Area. I don't follow this idea behind this Merge to a former redirect but it seems to be the consensus here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Growler, Arizona[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

OK, this has come up again in my review because now the "location" is in a different county, but actually the problem is still these are two different locations being conflated into one. Look, the rail location Growler is over sixty miles from the mining site, and it has no indication that it was ever anything more than a passing siding; it's not a relocation of the supposed mining town. It should be deleted, and the Growler Mine Area article needs to stop being a redirect and have all the NHRP-derived stuff copied back into it. The Growler Mountains are a big enough area that multiple things got named "Growler". If people feel that "Growler, Arizona" needs to redirect to the NHRP article, ~~or that there needs to be a new town article geographically distinct from the mine~~, well, I'm not keen on either of these but I won't complain too much. The current situation, though, is just ridiculous. Mangoe (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the source used to justify the third set of coordinates, I don't know why they differ from the NRHP data but they appear to refer to the same place. Therefore I don't see a reason for two articles. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Growler Mine Area. I agree this is confusing. I voted delete at the last AFD because when nominated, this article was a sub-stub about a NN rail siding listed as a populated place in GNIS. Then it was pointed out that there was a notable mine and Growler Mine Area was created. Somehow, most of the info about the mine was added to this article and the mine title was turned into a redirect here. Most of this article (about the mine) should be moved back into Growler Mine Area and then this deleted as this is not populated place that should have a stand alone article. The current article is misleading to say there is a "new Growler" that is a populated place. MB 21:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per MB and delete everything about the railroad siding. To be perfectly clear: The siding is not notable, it should not be covered within the NRHP article and it should not have its own standalone article. –dlthewave ☎ 03:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I find the consensus in this discussion is to Keep these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas (1–99)[edit]

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

A indiscriminate listing of Farm to Market Roads in Texas, with inclusion being solely on the basis of verifiable existence, rather than encyclopedic and topical relevance. Should be deleted for violating NOT and LISTCRIT.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the guidance at WP:CSC, specifically "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria." That is the case here.–Fredddie ™ 02:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That argument could be used to justify any list article; it's only applicable to content, not to the existence of the article. BilledMammal (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. WP:GEOROAD indicates that state highways are typically notable for their own article (which would include all these roads), however I do not believe that this necessarily extends to second-class state highways (which is what these are). So we wind up with these lists that attempt to strike a balance. I do not think that anyone would doubt the notability of the system Farm-to-market road as a whole so I think a list of some form is valid. Some might say that this should all just be merged into one giant table and that should be the end of it. While I would find that acceptable, I think we should keep the lists and be more strict about merging in articles such as Farm to Market Road 344, where it is not clear to me why they were left out of the merge process several years ago (when we really did have hundreds of these articles and systematically merged them away). --Rs chen 7754 03:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As a procedural note I have notified all creators of the nominated pages, except for myself and Fredddie and Scott5114 (since the nominator did not do this). --Rs chen 7754 03:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep— this is a discriminate set of lists. The word "indiscriminate" means "done at random or without careful judgement", and in this seat of lists is not random. If it were, there would be entries missing. WP:LISTCRIT also states: "While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list." This information is encyclopedic for fleshing out the context of the state highway systems in Texas, and the subject of these lists is narrowly construed as just the farm-to-market roads in that state. Imzadi 1979 → 07:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not random, but it was done without careful judgement, including everything as a mirror of the Texas Department of Transport website. BilledMammal (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The lists are intended to cover farm-to-market roads (a meaningful subject) in a more compact and clean way than the myriad low-quality articles that formerly proliferated across Wikipedia. I'd also like to add that even the nominator's rationale for deletion (that the lists are indiscriminate) is at most grounds for trimming the lists of "unnecessary" sections/routes to make it a discriminate selection, not deleting the pages en masse. -happy 5214 08:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GEOROAD, state highways are notable. However, farm to market roads are secondary state highways and are better suited to coverage in a list. This is a discriminate set of lists and is therefore fine to have. Dough4872 10:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOROAD does not say that state highways are notable it says they are typically notable (aka sometimes not notable), please don't tell lies about our notability guidelines. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NLIST: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. The Farm to Market system is notable in that the group of roadways is the subject of coverage in reliable sources, e.g. [26], [27], and [28]. Thus, while some of these individual routes may not have sufficient coverage to warrant standalone articles, consolidating them into lists is justified. Furthermore, these list articles are not indiscriminate, in that the number of such routes is a finite number that is determined by the Texas Department of Transportation, and thus the inclusion criteria are clear. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason given for deletion. There are ample blue links to articles about the individual farmer markets, making it a valid list for information and navigation. Dream Focus 21:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Farm-to-market road#Texas. I'll go against the tide. If there were only a few hundred roads, I'd say keep, but there are so many entries here, and almost every single one is a mirror of entries like [29], violating WP:NOTDATABASE. I at least appreciate that they have been compacted into a few articles rather than splayed across thousands, and regardless of the result of this AfD, the blatantly non-notable standalone articles should be redirected to their respective lists. I'd suggest something akin to List of minor planets: 535001–536000 and its ilk; a single table, perhaps with lengths and opening dates. But what we have right now is just a bloated mirror of the Texas DOT website. Ovinus (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the reasons listed above. Alexlatham96 (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Farm-to-market road#Texas, this does not serve a valid encyclopedic purpose... Arguments from roadfans to the contrary. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as valid lists under WP:NLIST. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Rschen7754. Agreed that most of the roads listed in this article are not individually notable and those articles should be deleted, but the list as a whole is worthy of inclusion IMHO.Dave (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't really add more than the many comments have already added, but I agree that this should be kept for the reasons stated above. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed above. Meltdown627 (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas but have links to the range of the FM / RM within that article rather than the summary that currently exists. Erasmussen (talk)
Strong delete - This is nothing but WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Of the whopping 36 lists above with hundreds of citations, there only three secondary sources used in three individual citations. One news article each at List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas (2900–2999), List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas (900–999), and List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas (600–699). The rest of the sources comprise Texas DOT Highway directory pages, public hearing notices, government maps, and Google Maps. Those are all primary. This violates WP:PRIMARY which says Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Rschen7754. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:23, 30 October 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 Elimination Chamber (2023). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination Chamber 2023[edit]

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

Do not know why this page exists. We have an actual established article at Elimination Chamber (2023), so even if this was created in good faith, there is not much use in keeping it. Zippo9310 (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect, these are duplicates. BD2412 T 01:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per "BD2412" Fifthapril (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Wrestling. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 25 October 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.